34 ms·

Using a "proper" camera as a webcam

• canbus 4y ago
  > Most kit lenses are pretty bad errrr... no they aren't. The 24-85 I have on my Nikon D600 is extremely sharp. The 18-55 on most DX Nikons is also pin sharp. For a webcam it surely doesn't even matter?
  • probabletrain 4y ago
    I agree with you. For use as a webcam, however, the author is probably after a much shallower depth of field than kit lenses generally provide, so opts for a fast prime lens.
• renewiltord 4y ago
  Does anyone have a comprehensive guide for Canon DSLRs on MacOS on M1? The Canon drivers to use as a webcam are nightmarish and my friends had a hell of a time trying to get it to work.
  • ldayley 4y ago
    I’ve solved most compatibility problems with several camera brands (and their drivers) by simply using a hardware HDMI->USB video capture/processing card or stick. Then I can mount it as a generic video device and not install drivers at all, allowing me to switch cameras out at will.
    • renewiltord 4y ago
      Ah ha, thank you. Which device are you currently using?
      • ldayley 4y ago
        Currently using an Atomos Connect since theyre compact and not expensive. Good luck!
        • renewiltord 4y ago
          Thank you!
        • jannyfer 4y ago
          FYI, online reviews say the Atomos Connect is just a repackaged version of the same generic HDMI-to-USB converters with the ms2109 chip that sell for $10-20 on Amazon (like the one linked in the original article).
          • ldayley 4y ago
            The recently viral “USB hubs drove me crazy” post forced me to realize that all commodity outboard consumer hardware are probably identically sourced boards/chips, with western branding responsible for the markup— but this one survived where a previous cheaper one failed, YMMV.
  • kmike84 4y ago
    As I understand, the drivers (webcam utility? not sure) are built for x86. For some reason they don't work in apps which are built for M1, so the camera only works if an app which needs a video is running in emulation mode. So, if you want to use Canon DSLR on M1 in a web browser (e.g. google meet), get a browser built for x86. I'm using Chromium, it can be downloaded for x86. The issue is that Chromium doesn't have screen share feature. So, for screen share, I'm using Chrome, and joining the call for the second time, in "companion mode". That's 2 separate browsers to participate in a call. Maybe there is a way to get Chrome or Firefox for x86, but I was a bit too lazy when setting it up :)
    • renewiltord 4y ago
      Haha thank you! That’s certainly an interesting approach.
• flipflipper 4y ago
  Another reason to not use a DSLR is that many (all?) have timeouts (<30min) in their video mode due to some import tax reason, even when hooked up to a computer. Atleast this is what I found when I tried a canon DSLR with canons webcam software.
  • adoxyz 4y ago
    That's only if you actually hit the record button and are actively recording to the memory card, but if you're using the DSLR as a passthrough, it works all day. I have done it w/ my Sony a6500 and it works really well.
    • crtasm 4y ago
      I've read some cameras still have a timeout when not recording, e.g note on Canon EOS 6D here: https://www.elgato.com/en/cam-link/camera-check https://www.elgato.com/en/cam-link/camera-check
    • michaelt 4y ago
      Can you run autofocus continuously when you're not actively recording?
      • ericd 4y ago
        The Sony a series can, no idea about others.
      • ldayley 4y ago
        Sony cameras work (as mentioned below) but nearly every mirrorless or dslr I’ve used does this by default or can be set up to by switching to continuous AF modes. This is best done while connected to a power source, as the motors drain battery faster.
    • ericd 4y ago
      I think Sonys tend to be recommended as working well as webcams, partly for this reason, not all do.
• curiousgal 4y ago
  I guess the only reason for me not to try this is how insecure I am about seeing my make-up free face in HD haha Solid write-up though! For those with no camera, DroidCamX works rather well too!
  • florbo 4y ago
    Yep, I'm using a Pixel 2 with both DroidCamX and DroidCam OBS (with OBS' virtual camera), I can second that claim. I occasionally use a Nexus 6 on another setup, but it's a bit bulkier to mount and is a bit finicky with DroidCamX. It has froze up on me a couple times. The OBS version works fine, though. I'll chalk it up to not cleaning up the phone prior to repurposing it.
• hu3 4y ago
  For those of us with less than perfect skin, using a webcam can be a feature. Also I found out that the difference in image quality between a good webcam and a semi-professional camera is not that big after video compression.
  • formerly_proven 4y ago
    One big advantage of a dedicated camera over a webcam is that you can get a focal length that actually makes sense, instead of an ultra-wide angle. Apart from that it's pearls before swine - any mm² of sensor area above 1/4" OF doesn't matter for MS Teams video crushing.
    • exodust 4y ago
      > "...focal length that actually makes sense" But a new problem emerges. Your face is now larger than other faces in the meeting. When the view splits everyone into the grid, your face will be the odd one out. I don't think it's important for your face to be 50mm photo quality portrait photography for a work meeting. Sometimes when the meeting window is full screen, I reduce its size because I don't want my colleague's faces up close in my face! Also why do people stare directly into the camera the whole time? I don't get that. I have my laptop off to the side slightly, and use main monitors for other work during meetings, or for viewing the meeting if someone is sharing their screen. Just like in real life meetings, we don't stare directly into each other's faces the whole time. I guess personal preference in these things will vary.
• 01100011 4y ago
  How does this compare to using something like the Raspberry Pi HQ camera and a decent c mount lens?
• cr3ative 4y ago
  I'll put Reincubate Camo here as an option too - turns your iPhone in to a webcam. I was so impressed I bought a used iPhone to use solely as a webcam; the whole setup was cheaper than the Logitech C920 he mentions. The picture quality is great.
  • olah_1 4y ago
    Don't iPhones do that annoying thing where it shows your image flipped the wrong way when you use the selfie camera? Selfie cameras should always behave like a mirror, in my opinion. It's how humans are used to seeing themselves.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • cr3ative 4y ago
      There's an option to flip the image, you can have it either way.
    • bydo 4y ago
      I forget if that's the default or not, but if it is you can disable it. You ideally wouldn't use the selfie camera, though; the rear camera has a bigger sensor and a better lens.
      • ldayley 4y ago
        Zoom and I think Teams and OBS have a setting to flip the video input.
  • pineconewarrior 4y ago
    Seconding Camo. It's not as cheap as the Elgato offering but I found the quality and options to be superior.
  • EveYoung 4y ago
    Does this work with the Teams client on MacOS without having to disable code signing?
• some-guy 4y ago
  Another good option is to use an older flagship smartphone. I have a heavily cracked iPhone 8 that works wonderfully as a webcam.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• awoodbeck 4y ago
  Some camera manufacturers offer software that uses your mirrorless camera to emulate a webcam without requiring a capture card. For example, Fujifilm's X Webcam software[1] would allow the author to connect his X-S10 to his PC using a USB-C cable, and use it as a webcam. The downside is X Webcam lacks support for Linux. [1] https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/ https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/software/x-webcam/
  • Tomte 4y ago
    And my X-E3 is not supported, but the practically identical X-T2 is!
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • jd3 4y ago
    It looks like Nikon supports this functionality[0] through their "Nikon Webcam Utility"[1]. Z 9, Z 7II, Z 7, Z 6II, Z 6, Z 5, Z fc, Z 50, D6, D5, D850, D810, D780, D750, D500, D7500, D7200, D5600, D5500, D5300 and D3500. I think the Z 50 (and updated, but cheaper construction Z fc) are the cheapest options here out of the mirrorless cameras. [0]: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-utility.page https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-utility... [1]: https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webcam_Utility.html https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webca...
    • KineticLensman 4y ago
      I used this for a while with my D850. It installed okay and worked, technically. I stopped using it for video calls because it was a hassle positioning the relatively heavy DSLR on my desk during calls and because it eats cam batteries for breakfast (you need a power lead that that slots into the battery location on the camera, which I don't own). The (free) version of the webcam utility doesn't give you full tethered photographic control of the camera, which might have made it more useful to me.
• EveYoung 4y ago
  Early into the pandemic, I was experimenting with an Elgato Cam Link as an alternative to a webcam. However, I never got the setup to work reliably with MacOS and MS Teams (e.g., random disconnects). Has this changed over the years and become a good solution suitable for daily usage? Currently, I'm using a Logitech Brio with two video lights; the quality isn't amazing but at least everything works out of the box.
  • briandoll 4y ago
    I have the Elgato FaceCam and it's absolutely fantastic on the Mac. Zero issues, great adjustability, good quality (much better than a laptop webcam, not quite as good as an iPhone/"real" camera.
  • ozten 4y ago
    +1 I wish I could make the Elgato Cam Link 4k more reliable. Some days it is flawless and then other days during an important meeting, I have to keep resetting the USB dongle. I have a setup much like the article, Sony A5100.
• pmoriarty 4y ago
  If you're willing to throw $1000 at a "proper camera" of the sort the author recommends, then sure, it would be very disappointing if it didn't outperform the webcam built in to most laptops or phones. But is there a "proper camera" for under $100 that can also offer an improvement over a webcam?
  • adhoc_slime 4y ago
    > But is there a "proper camera" for under $100 that can also offer an improvement over a webcam? no just buy an off the shelf web camera if that's all you're willing to budget. but for those of us with these cameras already becuase we enjoy photography, this dual use is quite nice!
    • estebank 4y ago
      Not only that, you can have a decade old DSLRs on ebay for <$200. I already happened to have a D7000 from when it was new. Checking on ebay that same (very serviceable) model seems to cost $150~$250. Of course, that might mean a high shutter count, but for the usecase of a webcam, as long as it can capture an image it will work great.
  • tobyhinloopen 4y ago
    Not for $100, but a Sony A5100 with 16-50 lens can be bought for $400 over here, and will produce a great image. It is very similar to the A6000 but it a bit more compact, less features and a cheaper build.
  • HidyBush 4y ago
    Canon's EOS Webcam Utility supports cameras down to the EOS 1100D, which, depending on your level of luck, you can find used under $100. Then all you need is a kit lens which can be found for very very cheap nowadays. Or, if you really think you won't be moving much, just get a super cheap vintage one.
    • moduspol 4y ago
      Eh, I've had mixed results with Canon's EOS Webcam Utility and my Rebel T7. I didn't see this documented anywhere, but apparently it's built only for Intel-based Macs. It'll still work on Apple Silicon, but only if the application using it is also built for Intel-based Macs. So you'd want to ensure you install the Intel-based version of Zoom, and then be careful to avoid it auto-updating to the version for Apple Silicon. I bought a license for Cascable's Pro Webcam, and it mostly worked, but I'd often have issues getting it to initially connect to the camera and it'd sometimes cut out unexpectedly.
• extinctpotato 4y ago
  Could somebody do an ELI5 on why some phones have very good cameras but for some reason there's no standalone USB version of them?
  • E4YomzYIN5YEBKe 4y ago
    That appears to be what the Opal C1 is doing. https://opalcamera.com/ https://opalcamera.com/
    • JoshTriplett 4y ago
      That looks great, except for being mac-only. Have they given any indication about whether it'll be a standard UVC camera and Just Work on all platforms?
      • nickpeterson 4y ago
        Also it isn’t available to actually buy. I’m sure they’ll be ready just in time for pandemic to end and macbooks to have better webcams…
    • wintermutestwin 4y ago
      Software is subscription! Ridiculous!
  • alphabettsy 4y ago
    Phone cameras are very good but owing much of it to the DSP and software. An iPhone camera will not produce iPhone quality photos without the chipset and OS.
    • aendruk 4y ago
      That still leaves the original question of why dedicated cameras aren’t doing this.
      • 4y ago
• adhoc_slime 4y ago
  Extra note here, I've been running my olympus em5 mk-2 with the drivers Olympus released to run it as a web camera and its been working just fine, out of the box. I got an extra dummy battery to power it (cannot be powered though usb) so I have no worries of it dying during a long meeting. in a remote office world, I'm glad my team leaves their cameras on and I view it as a form of professionalism to present myself as best I can, and if that's not following a dress code and keeping trim in an office, its giving good video quality in online meetings.
  • jeffbee 4y ago
    I'm also using an E m5 mk2 on macos, with the battery holder grip and 25mm lens. I'm happy with the image but the software is pretty bad, isn't it? There's a substantial lag between the audio and video which is disconcerting to the viewer. And the video stream doesn't reliably start. I usually have to flip the video off and on a few dozen times in the Zoom app before it begins working. Aside from that the cost of the Very Special USB Cable is a real insult.
    • adhoc_slime 4y ago
      I haven't had the same experience at all, perhaps its because I'm on windows? I also don't use my camera as my audio source. I use my laptop microphone for now, with plans to get an external microphone. I just use the usb cable that came with the camera, I never had to purchase it separately. The battery I use is one that uses the shell of a matching battery but provides a wired 8V DC through a usb SMPS, 20$ from aliexpress and I never have to worry about it.
      • jeffbee 4y ago
        I'm using the microphone on the mac ... the audio is ahead of the video. I don't think the OM-D Webcam software supports audio at all.
• tobyhinloopen 4y ago
  I’m using a Sony A6300 with 35mm F/1.8 lens and I get a lot of comments about my “webcam”. I’ve put it next to my monitor and put my meeting on the side of the screen so I look “into” the camera.
• bertman 4y ago
  I found my phone's camera together with DroidCam[0] to be good enough for my conferencing needs. [0]https://www.dev47apps.com/ https://www.dev47apps.com/
  • plorg 4y ago
    Only thing I find annoying about Droidcam is that I end up having to reinstall the audio and video drivers on Linux every week or so, either due to updates, restarts, or PulseAudio breaking.
    • bertman 4y ago
      In case it's the official Linux client that's giving you headaches, you could also have a look here: https://github.com/Kyuunex/better_droidcam_linux_client/blob/master/droidcam https://github.com/Kyuunex/better_droidcam_linux_client/blob... Just use `adb`, `ffmpeg` and the `v4l2loopback` kernel module.
• mikece 4y ago
  "...the A6400 seems to be slightly better as a webcam." Contact me if you want to buy mine! I bought mine at the start of quarantine for streaming live video at my local church but haven't really used it much since.
  • leetrout 4y ago
    Yes, please! Twitter or email? My gmail is my username.
    • mikece 4y ago
      Email sent.
• birdman3131 4y ago
  A cheapish alternative is to use https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ndi-hx-camera/id1477266080 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ndi-hx-camera/id1477266080 or https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newtek.ndi.hxcam&hl=en_US&gl=US https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newtek.ndi... and OBS as a webcam. The back camera on most phones is quite a bit better than any webcam. Yes the app is $20 but for me it was worth it.
  • tonyhb 4y ago
    You can also use https://vdo.ninja/ https://vdo.ninja/ for free to stream the phone camera to OBS.
• birdyrooster 4y ago
  Why does my Go Pro Hero 9 Black not work as a webcam with anything other than Cisco WebEx on MacOS? I can't get it to work with OBS or Discord on Mac, and I can't get any video from it on Windows. It's a fucking mess.
• hnthrowaway0328 4y ago
  Actually I prefer not to show face during any meeting. So probably won't buy an extra camera just for that. However, could be useful once I'm semi-retired and start streaming retro gaming.
• ldayley 4y ago
  One thing that I’ve been trying to educate my colleagues about (including the A/V folks!) is that one can bypass the need to fiddle with drivers by using a generic hardware HDMI -> USB video conversion stick utilizing the mirrorless/DSLR’s HDMI output. It’ll mount as a generic video input that Zoom/Teams/OBS can use. You can find these for $40-$100 and it allows one to switch out hardware brands at will without installing drivers. And don’t forget that it opens up a world of filmmaking mics to complete the package, and sends it all on one cable! I’ve used Fujifilm, Sony, Canon, Panasonic, and I think even a gopro once successfully using this method. Edit - added mic suggestion Also: this works for me on Win/Mac, but I’ve not tried Linux yet.
  • moduspol 4y ago
    I just failed at this recently. Apparently the camera needs to support "clean HDMI out," which many don't. Mine (for example) has HDMI out, but it's for like a "preview" screen for a photographer--it doesn't just output a clean, high-res HDMI stream. There's a web page on Canon's site here: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/self-help-center/eos-webcam-utility https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/se... You'll see one list of cameras on there, but at the bottom, you can expand "Clean HDMI", and then you'll see a different list of cameras. Now I'm debating whether or not I want to spend hundreds of dollars for a DIFFERENT photography camera that support clean HDMI.
    • delinom 4y ago
      Custom software, such as Magic Lantern[1] for Canon cameras, can offer clean HDMI out for certain models, among other features. [1] https://magiclantern.fm/ https://magiclantern.fm/
      • moduspol 4y ago
        It can, though it doesn't seem to support my Rebel T7 either.
        • 4y ago
• saturn5k 4y ago
  Maybe it's a bit overkill, but I use a Fuji X-T4 + Fuji 10-24mm lens as a webcam. At around $2500 definitely not cheap but it gets the job done magnificently. Additionally, the Fuji X Webcam software allows me to switch between Fuji's film simulations, adjust color temperature and exposure on the fly. The cam is mounted on a Manfrotto ballhead tripod behind my monitor.
  • hammock 4y ago
    What is the distance from you to the camera as you have it set up? Any issue with your monitors, etc coming into frame as well?
  • kirse 4y ago
    How do you deal with the 60-min video shutoff during important mtgs, streaming, etc?
• tamade 4y ago
  I repurposed my old Fujifilm X100F as webcam with the Elgato cam link 4k and dummy battery during the pandemic-- video quality received heavy compliments on Zoom. The setup was working fine until I upgraded my desktop rig. Seems Cam link doesn't play nice with the new Mac Studios.
• supermatt 4y ago
  Having done exactly this, my main annoyance is that you have to manually power on and off the camera, which means losing whatever zoom and settings you had configured.
  • formerly_proven 4y ago
    There are proper cameras which don't remember settings across power cycles and battery swaps? Curious. Never heard of that before, that's a complete deal-breaker for actually, y'know', using a camera to me. Perhaps the SRAM battery/capacitor in yours is just dead? (Then again, not exactly sure how that happens, I've used 15+ year old Nikon DSLRs and they had no trouble with Alzheimers)
    • vladvasiliu 4y ago
      Some newer compact zooms aren't manual, but zoom by wire. They usually retract when the camera is turned off. This is also the case for most compact cameras, which maybe the GP is talking about, because technically they're also "proper" cameras".
    • kuschku 4y ago
      This is actually an issue I've got with the a6300 and the Sony 18-105mm f/4.0 G lens, because it's a zoom-by-wire lens and forgets the zoom setting after every restart.
    • supermatt 4y ago
      The very first one in the list of recommendations - the a6X00 series. Theres also the annoyance of actually powering the thing on and off in the first place, which must be near universal. As it is, I use a USB "fake-battery" and just disable that. But its still something I have to manually do instead of the OS just "activating" it.
• boomskats 4y ago
  This is the main reason I own a Sony ZV-1: it supports UVC out of the box. With a use case as repetitive as jumping on a call, the UX is important.
  • chrisseaton 4y ago
    My problem is when you turn it on plugged in it defaults to USB mass storage. I have to turn mine on and then plug it in. What do you do?
    • chrisseaton 4y ago
      Answering myself - turn on PC Remote mode, which disables mass storage.
• goshx 4y ago
  I use a Sony a6600 with Sigma 16mm f/1.4 lens as a webcam and people love it.
• at_compile_time 4y ago
  >Mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter and have almost entirely replaced DSLRs. I haven't paid attention to cameras in a while. Did I miss this happening?
  • Kerrick 4y ago
    Yes. Sony became as big of a player as Canon and Nikon because of it. Canon launched a new lens mount (RF) and announced they will stop producing EF lenses and flagship DSLRs. Nikon launched a new lens mount (Z).
• madduci 4y ago
  But isn't running a camera as a Webcam actually bad for the battery, especially if you plan to use that camera also for trips?
  • wingmanjd 4y ago
    I've seen some AC adapters that fit into the battery compartment to replace the battery. No idea if it's a good idea or not.
    • formerly_proven 4y ago
      That's a standard accessory
  • scarmig 4y ago
    You can connect it to a power source that has the form factor if a battery.
  • jrockway 4y ago
    I have a thing that replaces the battery with AC power supply. While the DSLR is being used as a webcam, it doesn't even contain a battery.
  • samatman 4y ago
    There's no reason it should be, it's unclear to me which scenario concerns you: Mirrorless cameras can be powered by USB, either Micro or C depending on model. The batteries have a built-in BMS so leaving the camera plugged in won't harm them. Some mirrorless aren't thermally compatible with running full video on battery for long periods, this is worth researching before purchase, but for the ones which are it's not going to damage the battery to run off of it. There's no motive to do so with a desktop setup.
• mrdonbrown 4y ago
  I'm surprised no one has mentioned using a teleprompter yet. You can pick one up for around $100 and when combined with a little 7" monitor (another $100) attached to your computer, creates a nice setup for zoom calls where you can look directly at your partner. Also doubles as a great talking head setup for video production.
  • hammock 4y ago
    Do you have a good telepromper recommendation? I have found it hard to search/find good ones at a good price.
    • mrdonbrown 4y ago
      I use the Caddie Buddy one [1], which is a bit more robust for bigger cameras. There are other options where you can use your phone or something, but I prefer using a mirrorless and a good sized monitor. [1] https://caddiebuddy.com/teleprompter-for-ipads-androids-and-phones/ https://caddiebuddy.com/teleprompter-for-ipads-androids-and-...
      • dylan604 4y ago
        Oh my! A teleprompter for less than $200! I haven't kept up with this market, but that's so amazingly affordable. I've long switched to tablet for the text, but this is easily 5x cheaper than what I still use from a purchase back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I'm guessing that mine is 5x heavier too. However, it is one of those things that once you have it, you don't need a new one so I've just never looked to see what is cheaper today
  • ldayley 4y ago
    I second this! I’ve been using one of these as well, and I’ve noticed the positive impact looking directly at the camera can have on my conversations.
    • robszumski 4y ago
      Do either of you have a shot of what this looks like in practice? Google Images isn't giving me much. Specifically what the Zoom or Meet looks like from your perspective.
• mcdonje 4y ago
  I agree with the blogger that you should go with a smaller sensor size. In addition to better price points, they have less scanning to do for each image and should work better for this scenario. I've heard reports of some full frame mirrorless cameras overheating when used extensively for video.
  • formerly_proven 4y ago
    That really entirely depends on the brand / model. Some will overheat in under an hour, some will go on forever as long as you supply power. Price has nothing to do with it. DSLRs will almost certainly be a cheaper option than a mirrorless camera for this, because pretty much any DSLR from the last ten or so years works for this, and there are many more of them. Autofocus and availability of clean HDMI in video-liveview mode depends though. Many support direct streaming over USB using proprietary tools.
    • kuschku 4y ago
      > DSLRs will almost certainly be a cheaper option than a mirrorless camera for this, because pretty much any DSLR from the last ten or so years works for this, and there are many more of them That used to be true, but with used a6300 cameras going for around 300€ nowadays, it's not the case anymore.
• jonpurdy 4y ago
  What I am surprised about is that nobody has made a high quality UVC camera with a large sensor and great lens, specifically for videoconferencing. Even the "good" webcams (like the Elgato FaceCam and Logi Brio) have tiny sensors with small lenses. And iPhones (with Reincubate Camo) have bigger but still relatively tiny sensors. Pair an APS-C sensor with a ~24mm f/2 lens, with no controls; just a USB connection. This would barely be bigger than the lens itself (think double the size of Apple's old iSight). I'd easily pay $400 or more for this just to avoid messing around with mirrorless cameras and trying to mount them and use their drivers or HDMI capture USB interfaces.
  • ISL 4y ago
    Yep -- I'm real surprised Logitech hasn't shipped such a thing. $2-400 is the sweet spot. At ~$600, one starts being able to use a Canon M50 and a 22mm f/2 for plug-and-play high-end webcam usage. There's a huge market there that doesn't know it wants one yet, but it will once it becomes available.
  • Melatonic 4y ago
    An old phone is probably your best bet - you do not necessarily need that big of a sensor to get decent video. As long as you can provide enough light to keep the noise down and the lens (there are addon lenses for phones that are not half bad) is decent you can achieve probably what you want. The phone will have the necessary horsepower to actually process the video - I think that is probably the main issue vs a webcam More importantly though why does most conferencing software limit us to such low resolutions? From what I remember Zoom is still max or 720P which is pretty damn terrible....
• jannyfer 4y ago
  Off topic, but does anyone know which monitor that is? Looks beautiful.
• Hamcha 4y ago
  Only tangentially related but if you already have a popular Logitech webcam (like the C920) chances are you can find a kit to mount C/CS/D-mount lenses on it, like with this one: https://www.kurokesu.com/shop/C920_REWORK_KIT2 https://www.kurokesu.com/shop/C920_REWORK_KIT2 C/CS/D mounts are for CCTV camera so you can find new and used lens for cheap. They will not fix a cheap/bad sensor, but they will definitely get you extra flexibility in what kind of framing/shot you can do.
  • porphyra 4y ago
    I got a Mokose UC70 USB C mount camera on Amazon. It's just a plug and play webcam but I mounted a Ricoh f/1.4 lens on it and it's fantastic. Much cheaper than getting a real mirrorless camera too.
  • james_xu 4y ago
    This right here is the best solution I've found. I have their Brio kit w/2.8-12mm CS lens and it's excellent in a small package. Low light conditions are still a challenge due to the tiny sensor. As a bonus, you can disconnect the built in mics and opt for a nice boom mic with a hardware cut off switch.
    • danjc 4y ago
      How would you disconnect the built in mic?
  • Karawebnetwork 4y ago
    Do you know of sites with examples of the results?
  • zrail 4y ago
    With these kits do you lose the ability to autofocus?
    • Lammy 4y ago
      That sounds like an upgrade to me since my C920 and C922 had very fidgety auto-focus. I could turn it off via the Logitech camera settings application, but it would always reset itself to on when the computer was rebooted.
• dawnerd 4y ago
  I use a Sony a6400 with one of those powered "battery" adapters and hdmi out to an Elgato Cam Link 4k. Works nearly flawlessly. Sometimes Google meet refuses to pick up the video until I unplug but that might have to do more with the handshake between my back and my TB3 dock.
• callumprentice 4y ago
  The quality aspect is obviously important but I'd suggest that the location of the lens is also vital if you don't want to have meetings where everyone seems to be not looking at you. I cannot wait until cameras work behind the screen and can be positioned right in the center but for now, the only option I found was something called Center Cam that mounts a small lense on a skinny support that can be positioned over the screen, somewhat unobtrusively. I am a Camo user too and it's incredible but having the phone off to one side in a tripod or mount exacerbates the "here's (not) looking at you" issue. I started a project that uses Camo and suspends the phone upside down from the top of the screen via a 3D printed mount. Then, an app on the phone, mirrors the portion of the screen that is covered by the phone. Not perfect (or even close) and it means you need to use the lower quality front facing camera but it fun to dabble.
  • ekrebs 4y ago
    That’s a super neat idea! I have a feeling the inevitable solution to this need will be a combo of a tech like Apple’s Center Stage and some sort of eye-focusing alteration to the image, like a live deep fake of yourself (just the eyes). Software-only means widespread adoption.
    • callumprentice 4y ago
      Yeah, agreed - I had wondered if 4 lenses at the screen corners (maybe) plus some clever software could maybe do the trick too.
    • zwily 4y ago
      FaceTime actually did the eye adjustment thing for a bit, but they disabled it. Not sure why, it seemed to work okay. Maybe it freaked people out though.
      • interestica 4y ago
        Whoa really?? The future is probably a 'digital self' being transmitted + movements rather than actual video.
• inetsee 4y ago
  I can't justify the kind of prices being discussed here because the only use I have for a camera setup like this is Family Zoom meetings. I went looking on Amazon and I stumbled on "Vlogging Cameras". There seem to be quite a few of them available for less than $200, with 4K sensors, and either attached microphones, or an input for an external microphone. I have no idea of the quality of the image being produced by these cameras, but they seem like they could be a low cost option, and better than the typical webcams available.
  • ascagnel_ 4y ago
    The more appealing approach is to use a camera you already own rather than a C920 -- anything made within the last decade or so will probably work better, given the C920's awful white balance and autofocus.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• JamesMcMinn 4y ago
  I've been using an A6300 with a Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens (both of which I already had), mounted to the monitors stand using a basic clamp. It works great, looks fantastic [3] and I still get a lot of compliments for how good my video quality is. One issue I did run into was getting a decent HDMI -> USB capture device that works with Linux. My first choice was a high end (~£200) ClonerAlliance Flint 4KP [1] which worked fine for Hangouts, but had issues with Zoom and actually seemed to get worse as time went on and it eventually became a bit of a joke as I tried to join calls and had to restart my camera, unplug cables, etc. just to get video. Eventually, I swapped it out for a cheap £15 no-name brand from Amazon and have had literally 0 issues since [2]. The biggest drawback to this sort of setup is that if you're using a camera you already own, it can be a pain to switch between using it as a camera and using it as a web cam, so I've essentially got an expensive camera that I don't get to use as a camera very often. The advantage of course is that even on a dark, rainy evening with nothing more than a small lamp hidden behind my monitor, the image still comes out looking great [3]. [1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07YY52YP6/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07YY52YP6/ [2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B09955PYSH/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B09955PYSH/ [3] https://i.imgur.com/ReHStnV.png https://i.imgur.com/ReHStnV.png
  • dekhn 4y ago
    My only suggestion was going to be "get the cheapest HDMI->USB you can find", but I see you also discovered that trick :)
  • Derbasti 4y ago
    Very similar setup here: Sony a5100 + Samyang 30 + Elgato Cam Link 4k and a usb-powered dummy battery. This setup has been rock-solid for over a year now, and I run it all day, every day. Also useful is Sony's remote control, for engaging/disengaging autofocus without reaching for the camera. The a5100 has a useful flip-up screen, where I can see myself. Before that, I was running a RasPi Zero with a HQ camera module and a C-mount lens as a webcam. That worked well, too. Better image quality than any of my colleagues, but a long shot from the Sony, obviously.
• ratsimihah 4y ago
  I've been using a Sony A7iii and it's been great until I switch to an m1 mac. No compatibility anymore.
• dekhn 4y ago
  I have an alternative approach that I discovered recently while building a microscope with a webcam driven by linux. Nearly all modern cheap webcams are UVC-compatible and they work with linux. Different models expose different functionalities, but I ended up with this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07R489K8L https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07R489K8L It does 1600x1200 25FPS YUYV (as well as a wide range of other resolutions and FPS) uses the C/CS-mount lens standard (easy to buy a wide range of high quality lenses). It doesn't have a microphone but you should be using an independent mike anyway. Has software control of exposure color temp, and gain, which is great for various lighting conditions. You read the data through USB, not HDMI. The one thing I haven't managed to do is autofocus, but imho, for webcams you want to set a fixed focus around your head anyway. Works with all video conference programs, and OBS studio (I actually import the video in OBS and then create a virtual camera).
  • actually_a_dog 4y ago
    This looks like it should compare favorably to the "real" camera + HDMI capture card solution. The lens is always the most important part of any camera setup, so if you get the right lens, you're probably gold.
    • eropple 4y ago
      Ehh. After a certain point that's true, but a lens doesn't help much with a garbage sensor, particularly one that has to be compensated for with huge exposure changes. (This is the core of why webcams are disappointing, not the lens.) I use a GH4 or G9 with a USB3HDCAP at my desk because I already have them and the glass, personally, and I know the sensor is not going to be a trailing problem behind the (cheap!) glass that I use.
      • dekhn 4y ago
        The sensor is an IMX179 which is a mainstay. I believe the sensor area is smaller, and probably higher noise than a DSLR or mirrorless, but for VC use, it's probably not going to make a difference.
• PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  If you go this route, please make sure your system is robust and ready to go before meetings. We had to ask one employee to go back to his reliable built-in webcam because every other meeting started with 2 minutes of him getting his camera turned on, messing with audio inputs, getting his microphone boom in place, and fighting other quirks. He also had a tendency to drop out of long meetings when his camera overheated, at which point it was another 1-2 minutes of messing around with the camera setup. If you're going to do this, it must be reliable and ready to go before meetings. Don't be the person fighting with expensive equipment all the time just to get a marginally better image for your highly compressed Zoom video stream. This isn't a Twitch stream. We just want to talk and get down to business.
  • ldayley 4y ago
    Agree! It took time to learn how to do this effectively while remaining mobile/nomadic, and it forced me to decide what meetings are worth it which ones aren’t. For all of the gear I have (as a filmmaker…) I fall back to using an iPad quite a bit on the road.
  • deathanatos 4y ago
    … I mean, that's Bose QC headset's & macOS's relationship with Bluetooth, in a nutshell. Heck, I've had to fight to just get the onboard to function, particularly so in MS Teams.
  • NikolaNovak 4y ago
    Agree 100% - This is why I eventually dropped it. I used to run a photography side gig, so I reused my full frame DSLR, nice portrait lens and lighting + cloth backdrop. But I had cables everywhere and multiple points of failure in the chain. Camera could overheat, software was wonky, something would get unplugged, and there was stress on the CPU at times too due to 3rd party apps required. Overall it just wasn't worth the effort, especially once I realized nobody cared or even really noticed. Now, absolutely, many projects are worth doing for their own sake and for your own satisfaction :). But while accomplishing it brought that satisfaction, continued use on daily bases just wasn't worth it. So I looked for a nice webcam with narrowest possible FOV (which is the opposite from what manufacturers are going for, unfortunately), put it on a tripod with ring light, and I get results that are externally undistinguishable (if not better), but FAR superior reliability. ---- Note also that photographer in me wanted to do a Portrait shot with zoom in my face. Interestingly, overwhelming feedback once I actually asked real people, is that they PREFERRED a wide shot with my office visible. Made it more human and less stark/intimidating, apparently. So as ever, don't make assumptions of your user base! :)
• gcoguiec 4y ago
  I bought an Anker PowerConf C200 for less than 60 bucks; I expected an OK camera, but it's surprisingly good!
• vlunkr 4y ago
  I'd love to see stats on how many people actually still use webcams for online meetings. I rarely do, and I don't care if anyone else turns theirs on. Watching someone act like they aren't hyper-aware of what they look like on camera adds very little value to the conversation. Unless you're in sales, trying to make a good impression, or some kind of introductory meeting, who cares?
  • rane 4y ago
    It's nice to see your colleagues and it adds an extra dimension to meetings.
    • XorNot 4y ago
      With a 32" monitor it's actually really disconcerting to have a bunch of people feel way too close to me.
      • sumedh 4y ago
        Why cant your resize the window?
  • ldayley 4y ago
    True. But I think one can avoid the credibility damage presenting or appearing poorly over time can cause with just a little thought about audio and lighting etc. There are gains to be had simply by being seen and heard better even if there is low ‘diminishing returns’ point.
  • karaterobot 4y ago
    It's a higher bandwidth signal. There's a lot of information conveyed in a person's face and posture. Seeing their reaction to what you say tells you more than just hearing their voice. It's also useful for avoiding collisions where everybody tries to talk at once, and even for identifying who clearly wants to say something, but may be hesitant to do so.
  • gammarator 4y ago
• humanwhosits 4y ago
  I've been using the 'thecentercam' the last few days, and I get good comments on the "eye contact" that I now have with people
• max599 4y ago
  A compromise for when you want a high quality webcam without spending money or dealing with the downsides of using an "real" camera is to use your phone. A 3 year old iphone/samsung will have a built in camera that is better than any webcam you could find under 150$. When you are pairing it with a PC, you can use the back camera instead of the front facing one. They either work through OBS or a dedicated app that you have to start on your pc. I paid for an app (droidcam, 15$ for the "premium" HD version and free for SD+watermark irrc) because I was in a hurry but I know there are good free alternative if you have some time to spend trying them.
• spoonjim 4y ago
  The problem with all “proper” cameras is that they have multiple frames of latency and latency is by far the most important thing in a call. Has anyone found a “proper” camera pipeline as low latency as a webcam?
  • kmike84 4y ago
    Hm, I haven't noticed any increased latency when using a DSLR as a webcam.
• GiorgioG 4y ago
  I use a Sony A6000 with an Elgato CamLink 4K USB adapter. Works great in Windows and Pop_OS 22.04. Slack, Discord, etc all work and I didn't have to fiddle with any configuration since the CamLink shows up as a generic webcam. I set up howdy (facial recognition login) in Pop_OS and was pleasantly surprised at how relatively simple it was to get working.
• NamTaf 4y ago
  Protip: if your goal is to use your smartphone as a webcam, check out this: https://vdo.ninja https://vdo.ninja Written by some guy named Steve, it’s an incredible piece of web software that uses WebRTC to stream phone audio and video as an OBS input. OBS then features a virtual webcam capability to take that stream and make it a webcam. I can then also use OBS to do whatever processing I want, e.g. making my webcam also contain a screen share or whatever else. It’s trivial to then load up multiple instances for multi-angle scenes in OBS, then cut between the two. For example, you could have one ‘face’ camera and one ‘page’ camera showing paper on your desk and make a 2nd scene with the ‘page’ camera as the primary and a small PIP view of your face. It goes much farther than just being an input for OBS, though. For example, it can create video chatrooms of multiple participants with URL parameter configuration and without touching OBS (indeed that’s now one of its primary use cases). I use it to stream applications/webpages with my partner when we’re apart so we can watch a movie together by creating a high res vid/stereo audio input with no noise cancelling as the movie, then have her and I connect as lower quality, mono+noise cancelling participants. Each of us receives the video and audio of the movie, but only the audio of each other. There’s heaps of parameters to control video and audio quality, buffering, etc. - just about anything you need. I stumbled across it when I was trying to get my iPhone to be a webcam early on in the pandemic. There’s multiple apps for that purpose - many paid - but this was so easy and worked so well that it blew them out of the water from a capability perspective. I know I sound like a shill but honestly I’m just a huge fanboy. It’s one of those web apps that does a job really bloody well, with heaps of flexibility and extensibility. I’m genuinely impressed with it and all the hard work Steve’s clearly put in. The docs explain a lot of its capability: https://docs.vdo.ninja/ https://docs.vdo.ninja/ Flick through the how it works and use cases pages, they’ll explain it far better than me. Guides that show sown of the advanced capability: https://docs.vdo.ninja/guides https://docs.vdo.ninja/guides
  • tveyben 4y ago
    This was the best tip of the day - this is why I read HN - to find such gems. Work smart - not hard, thank you for the tip NamTaf!!!
  • dddddaviddddd 4y ago
    I use something similar to stream video from a Pixel phone over USB to OBS (Droidcam). I tried doing it over WiFi but the latency is better over a wire.
• jamesfisher 4y ago
  I love it. Where is the startup to fill this gap in the market?
• lumost 4y ago
  Why can’t laptops just get smartphone cameras? Is the BOM impact of a phone camera from 2018 really that high?
  • randyrand 4y ago
    not the bom, it's the screen thickness. Most laptops screens are much thinner than a smartphone. That said, i'd gladly have a little camera bump.
    • lumost 4y ago
      Aye - it would probably need to be ruggedized, but a camera pod wouldn’t be the end of the world.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • npteljes 4y ago
    Because the sauce is not in the camera, but in the software. I recommend the following article, if not even for reading, just to appreciate how much processing magic is going on: https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/ https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/
    • lumost 4y ago
      In that case, my laptop has substantially more computational power than my phone - why can’t it run the same software?
    • outworlder 4y ago
      That can't be... the full picture. Laptops have a decent amount of compute power available. If you look at laptop webcams, they are much smaller(and thinner) and have way crappier optics than an iphone camera. And nowhere near the same amount of optics. Look at this ancient iPhone 6 exploded camera view. Does it look like it's even close to laptop webcams? Let's not even go into the "huge" (in smartphone terms) lenses modern phones have. https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/iPhone-2-1.jpg https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/iPhone-2...
• securitypunk 4y ago
  Sony a7iii + Elgato camlink have been working flawlessly for me for several years now, on all platforms (windows, linux and even chromeos)
• nunez 4y ago
  Agreed. Using an SLR with a capture card and proper three-point lighting makes you look amazing in online meetings. Very easy to set up as well. Will cost about $700 to get going with, but it's a one-time cost that will work on any computer for a long time. Not every camera has clean HDMI output, though. It's hard to find a single list of cameras that have this feature, so you have to Google around. Cameras without clean HDMI out will show icons and focus windows when you stream from them.
  • themacguffinman 4y ago
    Elgato maintains a camera compatibility list for their Cam Link product, it notes which cameras have clean HDMI: https://www.elgato.com/en/cam-link/camera-check https://www.elgato.com/en/cam-link/camera-check
• Linda703 4y ago
  [dead]
• i_am_proteus 4y ago
  A decent webcam with good off-camera lighting yields most of the benefits and none of the hassle of using complicated camera equipment. I turn on the lights before teleconferences and turn them off afterwards, everything else is plug and play.
• tzs 4y ago
  We had a surprising result using a "proper" camera instead of a webcam for a task. We needed to take a picture of a particular thing every 15 seconds over a weekend. Our first though was to get a cheap webcam that has some reasonable interface to retrieve static images. Then someone remembered that the owner of the company was doing some personal projects that involved photography and he had a bunch of cameras in his office. One of them was a Canon Digital Rebel. That could be controlled by a computer. The owner always liked to save money, so agreed to let us use the Canon for the weekend. I wrote a script to trigger it every 15 seconds, set it running Friday before I left, and came back Monday to see how it went. What I found was a dead camera. The electronics seemed fine, but something mechanical was broken. A bit of poking around on camera forums turned up that something in the mechanics of the Digital Rebel didn't like extended rapid picture taking, and apparently every 15 seconds counted as rapid if you were doing it for more than a few hours. We then bought an under $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web server on its ethernet interface that made available a URL that when fetched gave you a static image of whatever the camera was currently looking at. It was simple to write a script to hit that URL every 15 seconds and save the result in a file named with the current timestamp. That ran flawlessly over the weekend capturing all the images we needed.
  • zrail 4y ago
    > We then bought an under $100 Logitech webcam that ran a web server on its ethernet interface Wait hold up. Logitech webcams run web servers and have ethernet interfaces?
    • someweirdperson 4y ago
      Maybe confused with Logilink?
    • Evidlo 4y ago
      Maybe he means ip camera.
    • tzs 4y ago
      This was sometime around 2005. I think it was Logitech, but it might have been another brand.
• giobox 4y ago
  For me, I look for the opposite solution. What is the poorest quality camera my colleagues in meetings will passably accept? I want as few pixels of my sleepy head in morning meetings being beamed to my colleagues as I can get away with, which for now the crappy MacBook integrated webcam does a reasonable job for. I second others here in that having a good quality mic is generally far more important. High quality doesn't mean spendy either - the location of the mic is just as critical as the mic you choose, many cheap headset mics sound pretty good because they get to place the mic directly in front of your mouth, not because they are especially great mics. I fully appreciate my opinion might be different if I worked in a field where being seen clearly mattered, such as guitar teacher in online lessons etc, but I imagine for most of us here this isn't the case.
• wnolens 4y ago
  Latency and audio quality are wayyy more important than video quality. Optimizing for that would have me downgrade the video resolution being received by the 8-10 people on my calls. Also what are the folks on the receiving end actually seeing? Certainly not the image he posted.
• kmike84 4y ago
  Not sure about the autofocus advice; I'm pretty happy with manual focus. It requires static camera placement, and fixed distance to the person, but isn't this happening anyways? Are people really walking around the room or moving camera between calls? Manual means there are less failure modes - slow autofocus, autofocus trying to refocus, focusing on a wrong thing, etc. It also means the hardware can be cheaper - camera doesn't need to have good autofocus (some old DSLR is fine), you can also use manual lenses.
• ulnarkressty 4y ago
  Keep in mind that if you're going to be using a fast lens as the author suggests the focus depth will be paper-thin at large apertures. So you're probably not going to get that creamy bokeh in your standup unless you stand perfectly still and move only your mouth muscles. You can really see this effect when the early mirrorless DSLRs took to market and every youtuber was using one with a fast wide open normal lens. Everything was zoomed in and out of focus resulting in queasy viewers. It took a couple of years for them to get the hang of it though.
• lkxijlewlf 4y ago
  I don't understand what's wrong with the Logitech C920's output there. He has plenty of light, so it's a decent image. He talks about video calls and not video production (YouTube, etc...). How great do the video calls need to be? And I get it, to each their own, but it just seems overly complicated. I think as long as you have good lighting, something like the c920 is good. I have a Razer Kiyo Pro and it's good too. My biggest issue is lighting. I have blackout curtains to keep heat out so my office is dark. I need more front lighting. Even an expensive set up like the article wouldn't help much.
  • Geonode 4y ago
    My C920 will suddenly drop focus and constantly tries to compensate lighting. And I cannot get it to stop. I'm definitely in the market for the right clean HDMI camera.
    • lkxijlewlf 4y ago
      Sounds like a defective camera.
• favorited 4y ago
  I've had to talk myself out of pulling the trigger on this several times. It's such an obvious level-up compared to how horrible most webcams are – but I just don't need it, and I'm unlikely to use the camera for anything else. I did spring for a nice software-controlled key light[0], and it makes a huge difference. It basically compensates for the fact that my home-office location has the worst lighting conditions, with a bright window directly behind me and another to one side. [0]https://www.amazon.com/Elgato-Key-Light-Air-app-adjustable/dp/B082QHRZFW https://www.amazon.com/Elgato-Key-Light-Air-app-adjustable/d...
• klodolph 4y ago
  For video, I think this is a waste of time and money. Audio is a different story. The quality of your audio has an impact both on the intelligibility of what you're saying and on listener's subconscious evaluations of you. Audio software and hardware is also cheaper and much, much easier to deal with than video--I've had no problems with essentially the same setup across Mac, Linux, and Windows. The cost of entry is somewhere around $50-$100 for USB microphones, although if you're willing to spend closer to $250, you can get a decent USB audio interface ($120) + standard (XLR) microphone ($100) + XLR cable ($10) + stand or boom arm ($20). I've been in countless online meetings where I'm barely able to hear one or two of the participants. Every time I've evaluated a better video setup, it's been clear that there are a bunch of things you want to get right in order to have a smooth & reliable experience. You want a camera with clean HDMI output, a capture card, and make sure that your camera can be run continuously for as long as the meetings will last--don't forget back-to-back meetings. If you might be in meetings for three hours in a row every once in a while, do you need a camera that can be run for three hours continuously? Most "proper" cameras just can't do that. If you dig into the specs, some of them will list the maximum amount of time that they'll run before shutting off. Twitch streamers and people who run YouTube channels have done the research and will tell you which cameras are suitable for this kind of work, but at that point, you're often spending like $700 or more just so people can see a clearer picture. I would love it if I could just use my DSLR, which is a very nice prosumer DSLR with some nice lenses, but it's just not designed for streaming video. I would have to buy something new. High-quality audio for $50-$100 is a much, much better deal.
  • outworlder 4y ago
    > The cost of entry is somewhere around $50-$100 for USB microphones, although if you're willing to spend closer to $250, you can get a decent USB audio interface ($120) + standard (XLR) microphone ($100) + XLR cable ($10) + stand or boom arm ($20). Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings, not streaming(or youtube creation)?
    • klodolph 4y ago
      > Is a XLR microphone worth the cost increase - for meetings, not streaming(or youtube creation)? I'm not sure how to quantify it, and I've not used USB microphones. By the time USB microphones appeared on the market, I already had microphones and there was no reason to downgrade. My point of reference is the Shure SM57 / SM58 (which are very similar). The SM57/SM58 is dirt cheap at $100, extremely reliable, and has a very good sound to it. The "sound" of the microphone is largely created by the construction of the capsule and the construction of the microphone body. When you listen to a recording, you're hearing not only the sound, but also the resonances of the microphone capsule and body. My experience is that as you explore cheaper options below $100, you see microphones with much cheaper construction and noticeable resonance problems. I am extremely skeptical of USB microphones that are radically cheaper--up to 80% less expensive--than the most basic, inexpensive USB interface + microphone combo I could come up with. For this reason, when I give advice to people who want to make music using a microphone, I recommend that they start with the $250 (total budget) USB interface and SM57/SM57. If $250 is out of their budget, then they should just save up until they can afford it. So I will tell you that I am not happy with the quality of microphones in general under $100, or the quality of condenser microphones under $200-$300. I'll also tell you that the main thing I've been using Zoom for in the past couple years has been remote vocal lessons, so my needs are different from yours. I would also caution you that there is an enormous amount of misinformation and bad advice about microphones online. People forget about acoustic treatment (super important), recommend that someone starting out get the SM7b (awful choice for first microphone), or tell you that condenser microphones are more sensitive to background noise and poorly treated rooms (just plain false--this one makes no sense at all). So is it worth it? Don't know--how much money can you play around with, and how much do you care about audio quality?
• gkoberger 4y ago
  I had a similar setup, and it was a pain. It was flaky and clunky. I switched to a Logitech Brio, and have been very happy. It's almost just as good, with no hassle. Highly recommend for anyone looking for an upgrade without wanting to go all-in. https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/brio-4k-hdr-webcam.960-001105.html https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams/brio-4k-hdr-...
• andix 4y ago
  I would like to have the ease of use of a webcam (plug it in via usb and it works), and the quality of a dedicated camera. And a possibility to make some presets (focus, zoom, crop, white balance), that are on by default and can be switched easily. It doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than a standard Logitech Webcam. If it would be in the quality range of an iPhone camera, I would be super happy. Any ideas what to buy?
  • mwarkentin 4y ago
    These look neat but not widely available yet: https://opalcamera.com https://opalcamera.com
    • andix 4y ago
      Yes, something like that. But not Mac-only and without a 4 usd per month subscription service to use it…
      • nrmitchi 4y ago
        For what it's worth, the camera itself functions just fine without the additional software (which currently still has its quarks). I'm sure you could replicate at least most of the software functionality with OBS if you really wanted to.
  • nicolas_ 4y ago
    Do you have a spare smartphone lying around? Install Camo or any other alternative on it. Connect your smartphone via USB, launch the app, and you're done. https://reincubate.com/camo/ https://reincubate.com/camo/
    • andix 4y ago
      This is way too brittle. What happens if someone calls me? Then I need to check if the smartphone is on, open the app, make sure it’s connected. I want it to just work. With zero overhead.
• deanc 4y ago
  Does using a professional camera (DSLR/Mirrorless) damage the sensor over time and lower the lifetime of your camera? Usually shutter count is a good indicator of health of a used camera - would this not have a similarly huge impact?
  • JamesMcMinn 4y ago
    I don't think there's any risk of damaging the sensor. The shutter is a mechanical part that will physically wear out over time, the sensor is converting photons into voltage. I've been using my camera as a webcam for over 2 years without any issue, and it's usually on for several hours per day. As long as the sensor isn't getting very hot then I don't think there's much risk to the camera.
• aenis 4y ago
  Did this out of boredom (and inability to use my photo equipment as intended in the travel restriction years). My setup was a Nikon Z6II with a 50mm f/1.8 glass, plugged via a capture card. It can do a 10hr meeting marathon without overheating while charging via the usb-c. Never crashed but surely a bit of a hassle and costs me a usb c port, since its not reliable when plugged to the dock (go figure). Agree with the others, it makes no difference. The only people likely to notice are other geeks. I look like a freshly excavated potato when shot with the webcam, and a slightly more favourably lit potato with the Z6Ii, good glass and diffused lighting. But hey, people have stupid hobbies, thats ok as long as it reliably works.
• karaterobot 4y ago
  "Wow, karaterobot, your ultra compressed, stuttery video signal has such a great color gamut and and brightness. The 2-inch square your face lives in on my monitor looks amazing, except for the compression and stuttering. Did you get a new camera? ... What's that? Can't hear you... your audio is... yeah you sound like a robot... oops, looked like we lost him."
  • kuschku 4y ago
    It's ridiculous that even the free tier of Jitsi Meet gets better quality than most expensive videochatting services.
• jccalhoun 4y ago
  A cheaper but somewhat more kludgy solution is using an old camcorder with a line out and converting that to USB. I had an old camcorder laying around (a samsung https://www.samsung.com/ca/support/model/SC-MX20/XAC/ https://www.samsung.com/ca/support/model/SC-MX20/XAC/ ) with composite out and I also had a composite to hdmi converter and another to convert hdmi to usb. (they also make composite to usb all in converters) I found the box for the samsung camcorder and I still had the RCA output cable. Chained them all together and windows sees it as a usb camera. Works without a hitch so far.
• waddlesworth 4y ago
  I have a pretty full on setup, with a condenser microphone on a boom, studio lights and softboxes pointed at me, with a full frame mirrorless camera and a high frame rate capture card. I tried doing meetings with it, but ended up getting a lot of inane comments about it, particularly as the microphone is in frame. Personally, I don't want to draw attention to myself in a meeting, so I've ended up going back to using a terrible webcam for work, like everyone else.
  • draw_down 4y ago
  • scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
    Ha! That would be the off putting trying too hard effect
  • krallja 4y ago
    I always get asked “do you do a lot of podcasts?” the first time I meet somebody
  • npunt 4y ago
    Visible microphones really take away from the naturalness that you get from a fancy camera, and they make workspaces feel cluttered to boot. Recommend getting a shotgun mic (AudioTechnica AT875R) and mounted it atop the camera, as these sit out of frame and still have great sound. Worth trying!
  • lysp 4y ago
    You should try a shotgun microphone (ie. Rode NTG2) It is directional, you can get a shock mount for it. You can also get it quite close but slightly off camera pointing at you. I'm not a fan of the microphone in frame, so this was my solution.
  • EricE 4y ago
    I love my Konftel Ego bluetooth speakerphone. $80 at Provantage.com and has really good built in noise cancelation too. Can easily be kept out of frame and sounds great - and you will sound great too. Way easier than fussing with a shtogun mic and way more forgiving if you move around too.
• RationPhantoms 4y ago
  I use this webcam and I'm pretty happy with the quality: https://getlumina.com/ https://getlumina.com/
• lars_francke 4y ago
  I'd like to have a solution where chroma keying is done in hardware and ideally also something where I can combine my monitor picture and my camera to do "talking head" videos without software running on my main laptop. It should "just" receive the final picture ready to be streamed to Zoom et. al. I'm probably not explaining very well. In the end I want to rely on OS & Software as little as possible because things keep breaking (on Linux) for me so if I can just get a single video feed to select as the camera source for Zoom, Teams et. al that'd be great.
• jcelerier 4y ago
  I use an X-T4 that way, exposed to V4L2 like this it works well (but with a ridiculous 1024x768 resolution which is apparently the best one can get out of its USB...): gphoto2 --stdout --capture-movie | ffmpeg -i - -vcodec rawvideo -pix_fmt yuv420p -threads 0 -f v4l2 /dev/video1 At some point I should buy a proper capture card for it... but for meetings it's already day&night vs laptop webcam
• TheBozzCL 4y ago
  During the pandemic, I tried something similar since there was little point to go out to take photos: 1. Sony A7II 2. 35mm lens (I tried others and this gives the best results for 2-3 feet) 3. Sony XLR-K2M adapter + Shure condenser microphone (this is absolutely overkill but I like to record myself playing guitar, and it beats timing stuff by hand) 4. Mini-HDMI cable to Elgato CamLink 4K USB dongle (I tried others, this one worked the best) 5. Two cheap LED photographic lights from Amazon - my workspace is very badly lit, so these also help me keep things well illuminated. The main downside of using a setup like this is white balancing - I found the camera was not doing a good job by itself, so I had to do some trial-and-error. In less controlled environments, like rooms with lots of windows, this becomes even harder over the course of the day. And yeah, I originally set all this up to stream games. How could you tell?
• alexitosrv 4y ago
  I disagree with the people here saying that no image is better than a camera feed. As an individual contributor and trainer myself, multiple times, I've found out that looking at someone explaining something in itself adds value. It doesn't need to be a sales pitch, you can discuss something with a colleague with a shared whiteboard, and still I appreciate seeing another one, their expressions, face complexion, mood, even their cats, dogs, etc. That doesn't subtract to the fact that audio is the stronger medium. A great mic setup is orders of magnitude better than a pretty face via a DSLR. Podcastage has been one of my favorite youtubers on the matter since last year, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEMZa5VN3Zw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEMZa5VN3Zw, and in that video he somewhat proves the point. For camera recommendations, I agree with the majority that it needs to be a reliable setup. I was not a fan of DSLR with capture cards precisely because of that. I recommend AverMedia line of 4K webcams which have good defaults, amazing glass and have a great resolution and adjustable depth of field. In the past I used an Aver C340 4K which is amazing, but bulky, and now more recently I use a PW513 which is way better than anything Logitech has to offer.
• hathym 4y ago
  honestly I can't tell the difference. for online meetings both are good enough as long as I am not colsulting a dermatologist for a problem with my skin.
• post_break 4y ago
  I use my GoPro and it's pretty excellent. The logitech C920 is amazing when using the software "webcam settings" unfortunately the app no longer works. You could adjust the gain, exposure, every setting that logitech for some reason does not let you adjust. I could get incredible quality out of that thing with that software, but since I can't use it on my M1 it's garbage.
• dijonman2 4y ago
  Video muting needs to be normalized
• almog 4y ago
  If you are going that route (I have), keep in mind that streaming from your mirrorless/DSLR HDMI port usually means h.264 live encoding, which might not work smoothly with older machine, there are very few HDMI to USB capture cards that perform the encoding. Since I'm still mostly using my old Macbook (late 2014) and a Sony A7II + (Sony FE 55mm f/1.8), I soon realized that with a basic USB capture device (a UVC device that exposes an uncompressed video as webcam) I couldn't get anywhere past 360p with 24fps, and even then, CPU was skyrocketing. Next I tried to utilize an Raspberry Pi that I have to stream the video, but using VLC as well as FFMpeg and few other streaming products, all did not do well when it came to resolution, fps and latency. At the same time, I researched some existing USB capture devices, and while Elgato seems like the popular choice, non of their USB capture devices perform hardware h.264 encoding, so the bottleneck remains the host machine. The only two hardware brands that I found at the time (around a year ago) that made USB capture devices with on-board h.264 encoders were Blackmagic and Magewell. I went with the Magewell USB Capture Gen 2 which seemed to do exactly what I wanted and no more than that. I was able to find for ~$80 and it has worked perfectly since — no latency or missing frames at 1080p. It also has a very nice management console that let you tweak the (hardware) encoding (enable/disable mirror mode, crop frame and more). EDIT: another thing that I tried was to use Sony Imaging Edge Webcam — a USB driver that turn Sony cameras into UVC (webcam) device. It works pretty well but has a max resolution of 1024 x 576. Not what I was looking for but still I remember it as being equal or even better than combining a cheap HDMI to USB devices that don't do hardware encoding with OBS for virtual camera.
  • manmal 4y ago
    The Magewell capture card costs almost 300 bucks, finding it for 80 is quite lucky I‘d say. I‘ve just seen it for €260 in used condition where I live.
    • almog 4y ago
      I found it just after many of the covid restriction were lifted, which resulted in businesses, schools and even churches getting rid of streaming gear on ebay. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I found quite a few at that were sold around that price (I just checked my ebay account and it was $75). Just checked and the price for new one where I live (Tel Aviv) is around $450, so I guess I was lucky, at least in that sense. Still, I do not know of any cheaper option to get 1080p video with older machines. I'm assuming that OBS on a 2022 Macbook would be able to deal with live encoding, but back in 2021 I was still seeing posts on OBS forums detailing streaming issues with M1 macs, and since most of them describe issues with streaming on Twitch, I could only assume it must be for video conferencing.
• Melatonic 4y ago
  I bought a Panasonic Lumix S5 (amazing camera btw - the whole full frame lumix collection blows away everything else I have used and I came from a Sony A7iii) and there is a beta software from panasonic that installs drivers to make it act as a webcam. Actually works quite well and smoothly (it just recognizes like any other webcam - no software to tweak). Unfortunately it is only limited to 720P while the camera can shoot 6K raw video (SSD external required of course) but it works well for Zoom and whatnot.
• 867-5309 4y ago
  I picked up a new C920 a few years ago on a £30 deal (I think they go for around £50 now) and it is by far the best USB webcam for quality at this price point I'm am at a loss as to why this guy is comparing said camera to cameras in the region of £600-1300. if they could produce 20x the quality, then it might be a wothwhile comparison, but they evidently cannot the C920 has inbuilt hardware h264 encoding (for £30!) which the majority of video streaming and conference platforms will thank you for, freeing up your processor to focus on network quality - which is far more important than choice of camera the C920 also outputs its nicely pre-encoded stream at 1920p, so I'm not sure why this guy is testing at 720p. perhaps he doesn't realise this and is why he is surprised by the wider angle. perhaps his £600-1300 "proper" camera or HDMI-to-USB only outputs at 720p. who knows. maybe if he'd have spent less time faffing around with desmurfification and Moire he'd have noticed this in the settings I was expecting an article comparing the C920 to an affordable proper camera with some ffmpeg wizardry, but all I got was a wishy-washy amateur photographer with a stable internet connection and lots of money to burn
  • jamescun 4y ago
    +1 for the C920. Got lucky and got one before the prices of webcams went crazy due to pandemic demand. Think they are back to around ~£60 now. It just works. Plugged it in, picked up within macOS without a problem, immediately usable in Google Meet. Picture is fine, audio is fine. No complaints.
    • jrodthree24 4y ago
      Are you actually using the webcam microphone? And does it normally work well for you?
      • jamescun 4y ago
        Yes, works fine. I'm not sure what it's optimal audio pickup area is, but perched atop my screen ~50cm away from my mouth, I have no issues.
• aeturnum 4y ago
  Webcams often simply use cheap, small sensors but I think it's worth mentioning that these "proper" cameras are also not designed to do on-demand video well. It turns out that if you spend $1000 on camera + lens it will look better than your $100 camera + lens, but that's not because the tool is 'better designed' for your use. On the higher end, cameras make different choices around pixel quality, heat fluctuations, etc in still and video cameras. I think the "professionally remote" segment of the market is super under developed but it's the perfect bingo of awful startup challenges: selling specialist (HIGH capital) hardware to end users with a socially-contextualized value proposition. Good luck! Edit: in case anyone else is confused - it's that you build a sensor differently to best transmit lower-resolution images for extended periods of time.
  • MrStonedOne 4y ago
• filmgirlcw 4y ago
  I’ve done this for two years with an A6400 (that is sadly discontinued and now sells for 2x the price with a kit) and a CamLink 4K, and I’m very happy with the results but for the usual web meeting, it’s overkill to spend $1100 on your setup (before lighting). I record a lot of video in my office so it’s a different thing, but I think the new Opal camera ($300, I got one last week) is pretty great. It’s going to be my new travel camera setup.
• Graffur 4y ago
  Unfortunately I can't use my Sony A6000 or GoPro as webcams because they need software installed and it's blocked on my work laptop
  • ihuman 4y ago
    If you use an HDMI-to-USB capture card like the one linked in the article, then you don't need to install anything to use them. The adapter acts like a USB webcam, so you don't have to fiddle with any settings to use it.
• onphonenow 4y ago
  Top tips. Wear a headset for a microphone. Avoid the echo cancellation step on each other effect. If you can't be bothered to do that at least put earbuds in.
• bradlys 4y ago
  I hate to say this but it’s almost entirely not worth it. The image quality only shows up here because they’re uploading images that they took from the camera locally. Trying doing it with Zoom. The compression is absolutely terrible. You’re gonna find that you spent a lot of time and money only to see a decent quality image on your side. Everyone else is gonna see the same muddy mess that they always saw. The image is always bad due to the compression. If you’re a twitch steamer or something where you’re doing a 50mbps bitrate then whatever. But for most folks - there is little to no improvement. Your best way to improve image quality would be to improve lighting. Even a good camera will have a bad image with bad lighting.
  • stingraycharles 4y ago
    Is this true? I know that Zoom can stream in HD, I can’t imagine the extra detail getting lost in those resolutions?
    • bradlys 4y ago
      Bandwidth requirements for Group HD video Standard HD (720p) - 1-on-1 video calls: 1.2Mbps (up/down) - Group video calls: 2.6Mbps / 1.8Mbps (up/down) Full HD (1080p) - 1:1 video calls: -- Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps. -- Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps. Group video calls: - Receiving 1080p HD video requires a minimum of 3.0Mbps. - Sending 1080p video requires a minimum of 3.8Mbps. https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/207347086-Using-Group-HD-video https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/207347086-Using-Gr... I know it says "minimum" there but it's likely going around that rate most of the time or lower. I've worked in environments where they pay tens of thousands of dollars per room to set them up with professional cameras, high end plans, etc. Compression ruins it all. May as well be a $10 webcam. There are other requirements as to how you interact with other members. You won't even get high quality unless you full screen + make it to where you can only see one member at a time.
      • a10c 4y ago
        > I've worked in environments where they pay tens of thousands of dollars per room to set them up with professional cameras Me too. The value isn't so much in the quality of video, its things like PTZ control of the camera and preset control of the position of the camera. For example, in a larger room you can click a button 'whiteboard' on the control panel and it will pan up and zoom in to the whiteboard.
• tgtweak 4y ago
  Just a note - I had a Nokia D90 dslr that would overheat if left in video mode for too long (over 5 minutes). Check for any "max video recording length" mentions on the camera's spec sheet as a early sign that this might be the case. A "yesteryear" smartphone that is collecting dust is also an excellent alternative, as they have surprisingly high quality cameras and lenses (on the rear side, anyway). I use a cracked-screen-not-worth-repairing Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (about 5 years old now) placed in an amazon ring light (that conveniently has a phone-sized clamp-style mount in the middle). There is an android app that turns the phone into a network-accessible webcam, and a windows app to receive it and map it as a system camera input. Quality (resolution, field-of-view, focus and light levels even with very bright background) is miles ahead of my logitech brio 4k webcam - to the point I resold the brio after only a few days. I can actually stream in 2160p from the device at a pretty respectable framerate. Probably not on par with a modern DSLR but for something that most people I think have laying around - highly worth trying first.
  • sorenjan 4y ago
    What's the latency like?
    • tgtweak 4y ago
      Less than 100ms which is very acceptable for video conferencing. Phones also have pretty solid wifi antennas in them so throughput is great even when wirelessly connected to the network.
    • stavros 4y ago
      I use Droidcam and the latency is minimal (over USB; WiFi is a bit more).
• kohlerm 4y ago
  I use a Canon 600d with a 50mm 1.4 lens.people say it looks professional
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• hahamrfunnyguy 4y ago
  I've done some live streams using OBS, a DSLR and a capture card. Definitely not something I'd want to do for every online meeting. When I need a camera, I use a Logitec C920 webcam. Not as good as a DSLR or mirrorless camera, but it's sufficient and works.
• protomyth 4y ago
  We used an ATEM mini from Blackmagic Design with a couple of cameras with HDMI out. The mini acts like a USB web cam when you hook it to the computer.
• chiefgeek 4y ago
  Use Camo and your iPhone FTW!
• papandada 4y ago
  Lume cube edge desk light (x2). Logitech brio. Røde NT1 mic into an audio interface. Amazing for video calls, and interviews. I feel very professional. I had the desire to get a Sony mirrorless but all the local Kijiji sellers were flaky. Saved me a couple thousand anyway. No need for it unless I was recording videos (and maybe not even then).
• m348e912 4y ago
  It's been mentioned in this thread already but the Canon EOS webcam software is kind of cool and it allows you to use fairly high end SLR cameras as a web cam. I bought a battery adapter and tried it with a Canon 5DmIV not too long ago and it worked pretty well. If I were doing some serious webcamming I'd probably go with something smaller and less expensive, there are whole youtube series on what best cameras to use when streaming or recording. I forget which one seemed to lead the pack. A panasonic maybe?
• skybrian 4y ago
  I’m wondering if a setup with an external webcam would make it easier to record yourself while using video chat software that doesn’t support recordings (like Duo).
• brocha 4y ago
  I use a GoPro Hero 9 Black and always get compliments on my image quality. GoPro's software is lacking so I stream straight to my computer and do post-processing there with great results. It's a good little device for those not wanting to spend $1000+ on a "nice" camera
• kn0thing 4y ago
  I've had a setup like this since the start of covid and it's what inspired me to seed https://opalcamera.com/ https://opalcamera.com/ (because they built a pro-sumer webcam for $300)
• sumanthvepa 4y ago
  I’ve been using a Sony ZV-1 as my webcam. With a low end laptop (Intel core i3 8th gen running Ubuntu) I had a lot of problems with using zoom. But I switched to a beefier machine with a Xeon processor and a Qadro 6000 graphics card which I use for simulation work and it all worked fine. The camera itself had no problems even with 4 hour sessions.
• gandalfff 4y ago
  I don't want a camera as a webcam. I don't want a device that only works sometimes and has to be setup before use. I don't want a camera that is so good all of my pores are in view. A small amount of blurriness is a feature, not a bug.
• unrealp 4y ago
  Using this way for last 1 year without any issue. My setup has canon d5200 with 18-55 lens. Camera is powered by dedicated plugged in power supply. For audio I use a separate headset. OS is ubuntu. Longest I have used is 5 hours continuous without any problems.
• Pamar 4y ago
  I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I am just repeating a point someone else made. I draw as a hobby; during the pandemic, lots of people started hosting art posing sessions over Zoom (here is an example of one of my sessions, model was in Mexico - I live in Europe: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb8WpdEAsOk/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb8WpdEAsOk/?utm_source=ig_web_c...) so I was interested in this article because it looked like something that could make a difference for some of the studios/models I worked with. Well... it is not really practical. Models do not have large budgets for a start, and are not necessarily tech savvy enough to put together something like this or make it work reliably. Some places do combined live/online sessions (artists are in the room with the model and there is also a camera for people drawing remotely). I sincerely doubt that this would be of use even for studios. I believe that online modeling could be a valid use case, but the cost/hassle ratio makes it absolutely impractical for anyone who could be even remotely interested in something like this. In other words: as the article itself mentions at the start "The market for decent quality webcams seems to be non-existent". Just like "build your AV". It may be an interesting project for a blog post, but it is really improbable that anyone else would try to replicate the endeavor.
  • jephson 4y ago
    > really improbable that anyone else would try to replicate the endeavor. Not so, this week I bought one of the cameras mentioned in the article for the same purpose.
    • Pamar 4y ago
      I am glad for you that you can afford this, but I still think it is really too expensive/complicated for the benefits you are supposed to get from it.
• marie1595 4y ago
  [dead]
• nextlevelwizard 4y ago
  Is it any wonder that $70 webcam gets out performed by $1200 camera (and that is without a lens!) My Covid solution was a GoPro 9. Which was like $500, so still way more expensive than the $70 webcam in question, but still way cheaper than any kind of "proper" camera. Sadly the GoPro as a Webcam can only output 1080p even though solo it can record 4K, but since it usually record very wide fish-eye in the webcame mode you can crop to a more sensible "narrow" view that mimics traditional lenses (and since we are cropping 1080 out of 4K the image is still crisp). Of course I can't recommend buying a GoPro to just be a webcam, but if you are not into traditional photographing as a hobby (I think my iPhone does the job well enough that I can't justify spending thousands on DSLR and lenses) GoPro is a neat gimmick camera you can attach to various other hobby projects and it still works as decent webcam.
• sakopov 4y ago
  I do landscape photography and I've repurposed my (fairly dated) DSLR for work meetings. I have a Nikon D600 with Elgato Cam Link 4K capture card and AF-S 70-200mm lens. The lens gives a nice bokeh in the background. It's been great for meetings but the camera does tend to run hot if I leave it on for several hours and shut off, which is expected considering how old the body is. Still love how crisp the image is and do recommend DSLRs for this use if you have one laying around.
• sasij 4y ago
  Article says mirrorless has basically replaced DSLR, but latest figures actually show SLR sales are up and mirrorless is down.
• ParanoidShroom 4y ago
  I'd rather buy dedicated hardware and have it just work. Currently using portal from facebook, works pretty well but limited to the most used video calling like zoom. No google meet :/
• e-clinton 4y ago
  I used my Fuji XT-20 with a CamLink for a couple of days early in the pandemic. It was great from a quality perspective and everyone envied the quality, but it was unreliable so I eventually just picked up a Logitech Brio.
• JayMickey 4y ago
  The key to this is really to find the "good enough" solution. For me that was a Sony RX100 Mk V that I already owned plugged into a £25 USB-HDMI capture card. No software required. There is an option to remove the default overlay just for mini-HDMI output in the camera settings. The increase in quality compared to even the "high-end" webcams is significant, with only a minor increase in complexity. I think if your solution requires you to start faffing around with proprietary camera software or OBS then you've gone too far. I also agree with other commenters in that a higher quality microphone is far more important. I personally use a Rode Procaster into a Focusrite Scarlett Solo USB interface, but I also use the microphone for professional use. Even something as simple as an external USB microphone (e.g. AT2020USB+ [1]) is going be a massive improvement to *the people who need to listen to you*. [1] https://www.audio-technica.com/en-gb/at2020usb https://www.audio-technica.com/en-gb/at2020usb
• OOPMan 4y ago
  This seems like a lot of effort for little value.
• major505 4y ago
  To be honest this is a very expensive route to go. I started recently using an alternative using droidcam on an old Iphone 5 I had laying around, with a battery that could not hold charge. If your are in Mac you have to use virtual camera in ops, but works great with linux and windows. I still use a headset mic, but provides great image quality with the benefit of being wireless.
• MetroWind 4y ago
  Since I don't have a "webcam", I've been using my A7R2 as my meeting camera since covid. I use a 40mm manual lens, and adjust exp comp as needed. No overheating or other issues whatsoever. I'm surprised that so many people seem to have problem with their setup.