> We’re not streaming high-bitrate 1080p H.265 on our 5-person Zoom calls. After compression and denoising the extra sharpness and low noise of a high end camera doesn’t add much benefit.
This was my experience exactly after testing different setups. I still use my Lumix GX8 for photography and home videos, but it wasn't even close to worth the trouble of maintaining the setup compared to a ~$100 Logitech option that I leave on top the monitor with good lighting and plug in via usb hub as needed.
This is plainly wrong. I use Sony a5100 (cheapest camera you can hook up as webcam) and in zoom meetings the difference between my image and others (even though some tried to use their phones) is just night and day.
Disclaimer: I am that brother referred in the article. :)
I have to imagine that everyone who says this only tried a cheap lens with a teeny aperture. The narrow depth of field of a good camera+lens combo looks vastly different from a consumer webcam, and survives compression (easily, in fact, since the low frequency data in the background gets quantized less brutally than the high-frequency data of your face). In fact, I think that’s the primary visual cue for the “pro” look. Your GX8 is MFT, so you'd need a pretty wide lens (at least f/2, ideally f/1.4) to appreciate this.
This was my experience exactly after testing different setups. I still use my Lumix GX8 for photography and home videos, but it wasn't even close to worth the trouble of maintaining the setup compared to a ~$100 Logitech option that I leave on top the monitor with good lighting and plug in via usb hub as needed.