3 ms·

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 w

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.
  - wlonkly 4y ago
    Give Camera Live[1] a shot. Canon's own software doesn't support my ancient Rebel TSi so I have to use this one instead, but it's worked really well for me. It connects using Syphon so matching up architecture shouldn't matter (and it works under Rosetta). I use Syphon Virtual Webcam[2] to feed to Zoom, but you can also use OBS. [1] https://github.com/v002/v002-Camera-Live https://github.com/v002/v002-Camera-Live [2] https://github.com/TroikaTronix/Syphon-Virtual-Webcam https://github.com/TroikaTronix/Syphon-Virtual-Webcam
- aeyes 4y ago
  It's under 10fps for most of the cheap models. And unless you don't move at all the focal point of the kit lens is going to make the video almost useless. Autofocus on these cameras can't follow as fast as necessary for live video. I have played with EOS webcam utility in the past and if you are not ready to spend big, DSLR is not the way to go.
  - estebank 4y ago
    I find it interesting that so many people talking about autofocus. My set up has everything on manual focus, and unless I use a 1.8f aperture, there's no need to change things unless I materially change the way I seat.
Kerrick 4y ago
At that budget you’d be better served getting a cheap lighting kit and a small to help push your webcam to its limits. Mount the webcam at eye level, pick a classic portrait lighting setup, and make every pixel work for you. https://medium.com/@sukeshgtambi/24-portrait-character-lighting-setups-photography-cinematography-bdd7a967407c https://medium.com/@sukeshgtambi/24-portrait-character-light...
hammock 4y ago
No. It comes down to sensor size and that doesn't come cheap
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
$100 can get you an excellent microphone with a boom arm and that will be appreciated by your colleagues much more than being able to count your stubble in 4K 60 fps. I actually don't want colleagues to be able to inspect my face in immaculate detail, and the amount of ceremony and awkward stands begind the monitor, etc. do not make sence to me. The more expensive webcams do a decent enough job.
- ISL 4y ago
  No boom needed for a big improvement -- the Blue Yeti Nano sits nicely on my desk, gets the job done.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    I think its nice, I find a big mic on the desk gets in the way
- npteljes 4y ago
  I agree. And you don't even need to spend much - I picked up a Fifine K669B usb mic for $25, and the thing records absolutely fine.
orbital-decay 4y ago
The key to the better quality is not camera, it's light. A dedicated camera with a fast lens has three key improvements over a typical webcam: - bokeh - less noise in the dark, better dynamic range (almost irrelevant for a webcam) - less compressed video (potentially), which is critical for chroma keying; certain USB3 webcams can deliver a much less compressed stream as well. If you're willing to sacrifice bokeh and don't need chroma keying, $100 or slightly more can buy you light sources to make you look substantially better on your under $100 webcam. And without proper lighting, the proper camera is useless as well. Some other steps to look good on a webcam: choose a good lighting scheme, use proper camera settings, do some color correction; a color calibration card helps with this immensely, even a cheap one. Use the virtual webcam in OBS with a LUT generated from your card, control your scene with a vectorscope plugin. Voila, you just upgraded your look to a 100x more professional one, using just a simple webcam. Keep in mind that you need much (and by this I mean MUCH) more lighting than you probably think you do. And possibly blackout shutters or curtains to completely block the outside light, making your lighting controlled.
- MR4D 4y ago
  I'll second this. My recommended order is: 1 - Lighting 2 - Microphone 3 - Camera Even when you see people on the news through webcams, their pictures and audio often are not well lit or mic'd.
ldayley 4y ago
Not quite $100 but I see the aging yet highly-regarded, video-centric Panasonic GH4 sold used for as little as $200 without a lens. This is the camera many small-midsize video production outfits have stuck to for a >decade. There are many (often fairly good) generic lenses for the 4/3” sensor mount it uses, and the camera is known for having a clean Full HD HDMI out. I can see building a setup like this for as little as $300-400. Add a $40-$100 LED light mounted on the camera and you’ve improved your video presence by 10x for less than $500. *Edited for grammar.

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.
- wlonkly 4y ago
  Give Camera Live[1] a shot. Canon's own software doesn't support my ancient Rebel TSi so I have to use this one instead, but it's worked really well for me. It connects using Syphon so matching up architecture shouldn't matter (and it works under Rosetta). I use Syphon Virtual Webcam[2] to feed to Zoom, but you can also use OBS. [1] https://github.com/v002/v002-Camera-Live https://github.com/v002/v002-Camera-Live [2] https://github.com/TroikaTronix/Syphon-Virtual-Webcam https://github.com/TroikaTronix/Syphon-Virtual-Webcam
aeyes 4y ago
It's under 10fps for most of the cheap models. And unless you don't move at all the focal point of the kit lens is going to make the video almost useless. Autofocus on these cameras can't follow as fast as necessary for live video. I have played with EOS webcam utility in the past and if you are not ready to spend big, DSLR is not the way to go.
- estebank 4y ago
  I find it interesting that so many people talking about autofocus. My set up has everything on manual focus, and unless I use a 1.8f aperture, there's no need to change things unless I materially change the way I seat.

Kerrick 4y ago

At that budget you’d be better served getting a cheap lighting kit and a small to help push your webcam to its limits. Mount the webcam at eye level, pick a classic portrait lighting setup, and make every pixel work for you. https://medium.com/@sukeshgtambi/24-portrait-character-lighting-setups-photography-cinematography-bdd7a967407c https://medium.com/@sukeshgtambi/24-portrait-character-light...

hammock 4y ago

No. It comes down to sensor size and that doesn't come cheap

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

$100 can get you an excellent microphone with a boom arm and that will be appreciated by your colleagues much more than being able to count your stubble in 4K 60 fps. I actually don't want colleagues to be able to inspect my face in immaculate detail, and the amount of ceremony and awkward stands begind the monitor, etc. do not make sence to me. The more expensive webcams do a decent enough job.

ISL 4y ago
No boom needed for a big improvement -- the Blue Yeti Nano sits nicely on my desk, gets the job done.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  I think its nice, I find a big mic on the desk gets in the way
npteljes 4y ago
I agree. And you don't even need to spend much - I picked up a Fifine K669B usb mic for $25, and the thing records absolutely fine.

orbital-decay 4y ago

The key to the better quality is not camera, it's light. A dedicated camera with a fast lens has three key improvements over a typical webcam: - bokeh - less noise in the dark, better dynamic range (almost irrelevant for a webcam) - less compressed video (potentially), which is critical for chroma keying; certain USB3 webcams can deliver a much less compressed stream as well. If you're willing to sacrifice bokeh and don't need chroma keying, $100 or slightly more can buy you light sources to make you look substantially better on your under $100 webcam. And without proper lighting, the proper camera is useless as well. Some other steps to look good on a webcam: choose a good lighting scheme, use proper camera settings, do some color correction; a color calibration card helps with this immensely, even a cheap one. Use the virtual webcam in OBS with a LUT generated from your card, control your scene with a vectorscope plugin. Voila, you just upgraded your look to a 100x more professional one, using just a simple webcam. Keep in mind that you need much (and by this I mean MUCH) more lighting than you probably think you do. And possibly blackout shutters or curtains to completely block the outside light, making your lighting controlled.

MR4D 4y ago
I'll second this. My recommended order is: 1 - Lighting 2 - Microphone 3 - Camera Even when you see people on the news through webcams, their pictures and audio often are not well lit or mic'd.

ldayley 4y ago

Not quite $100 but I see the aging yet highly-regarded, video-centric Panasonic GH4 sold used for as little as $200 without a lens. This is the camera many small-midsize video production outfits have stuck to for a >decade. There are many (often fairly good) generic lenses for the 4/3” sensor mount it uses, and the camera is known for having a clean Full HD HDMI out. I can see building a setup like this for as little as $300-400. Add a $40-$100 LED light mounted on the camera and you’ve improved your video presence by 10x for less than $500. *Edited for grammar.