29min record limit on Cameras in the EU

[David Peterson]

The Samsung NX1 has the limit, but with the latest firmware update it will automatically restart afterwards.

Sounds like a nice and nifty way to get around the taxes!! And saves you needed to monitor it constantly.

Still got the issue of a few frames missing for a fraction of a second, but not an issue at all if using multiple cameras.

[Jim Andrada]

Never did a wedding with it but this was the first videocam I used. Not that i was anywhere as good looking as this young lady)

[Brian Drysdale]

If anyone wants read about what introduces a tariff onto a stills camera in the EU, you can find out on P254-257. This is 4.9% for a video camera as against 0% for a digital camera. So you can see why the restrictions are currently applied to DSLRs etc by manufacturers in a price conscious stills camera market.

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report...1WTO/1-4EU.pdf

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

If anyone wants read about what introduces a tariff onto a stills camera in the EU, you can find out on P254-257. This is 4.9% for a video camera as against 0% for a digital camera. So you can see why the restrictions are currently applied to DSLRs etc by manufacturers in a price conscious stills camera market.

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report...1WTO/1-4EU.pdf

That only confirms what we already know, that 4.9% duty is charged on cameras that can record video for more than 30 minutes, leaving cameras that can only record less than 30 minutes to have no import duty. What it doesn't do is explain why it was felt necessary to put a 30 minute limit on, or why manufacturers bother to enable digital cameras for video at all if they are concerned about losing sales on higher priced video cameras.

Let's face it, any film maker using a DSLR for documentary, general programme making , music video corporate etc is probably not going to be shooting clips for more than a few minutes at a time anyway. They are also not going to spend thousands of pounds more to get the same picture quality without the time limit. So what is the point of the duty if it is not actually stopping anyone from using the cameras for video. As the duty is only applicable to the EU, why don't the manufacturers just offer the same version but without the inhibited record time as a 4.9% more expensive option. They already sell them outside the EU, so the products already exist. There are already wide variations in suppliers prices that are greater than 4.9% on the inhibited cameras, so I am still at a loss to understand such a pointless regulation and the manufacturers failure to offer the option.

Roger

[Tim Polster]

I agree with Roger here. At this point in time it is getting kind of stupid with the number of cameras out there. The camera makers market the cameras with all kinds of video features but then want to limit the recording? Does not make sense to me.

4.9% on a $700 camera is only $35. Yes, we would all pay an extra $35 for unlimited recording time.

I use a little Panasonic LX7 for hidden camera shots some even right on stage with performers. When the LX100 came out I was interested in upgrading and willing to pay the almost 3x price difference. The LX100 has a 30 min. record limit so no sale from me. Would it hurt them to have a $100 more expensive model number with different firmware?

What really gets me is a lot of cameras have a US specific model to begin with. So what the heck does EU tax policy have to do the US? Just do not understand...

[Dave Blackhurst]

No doubt there is some obscure trade agreement somewhere... since grey market importing an NTSC camera into a EU PAL territory wouldn't be hard... can't have those dangerous cams running around without limits that can't be taxed!

It's still silly though. With so many dual mode cameras, there are "still" cameras that are likely as good or better than comparably priced video cameras.

I'm guessing the costs to lobby for a regulatory change exceed anticipated market profits.

In the end, I've been using cameras with the limit for some time, and doing a "double tap" when needed on long clips when there's a brief lull in long form events. even with several cameras running, it's not THAT big a problem. I can only see it being an insurmountable issue when you have an unmanned camera that is in an inaccessible position.

[Roger Gunkel]

That's it Dave, it's easy enough to tap record if you reach the limit, so what is the point of having it? I can't believe it is for the sake of a measley 4.9%

Roger

[Brian Drysdale]

I assume the EU decided on what defines a video camera (in the way they do) and if something ticks the boxes it fills the criteria. Presumably most of the stills photographers don't want to pay 4.9% extra, so by limiting the record time it no longer fits. Tax and duty laws are full of such things e;g. stamp duty on a house above a certain value.

I'm not sure if the FAT file size is a factor in this, it got mentioned at the time all this came out.

[Jon Fairhurst]

The situation makes sense to me, once you make the assumption that the EU wants to tax video cameras and avoid taxing still cameras. (Ignore for a moment whether you believe that this is good or bad policy.)

The first thing they need to do is make a definition of "video camera". Industry members point out that the first version inadvertently includes still cameras. "You know one when you see one" doesn't work. Eventually, policymakers and industry representatives settle on a flawed but workable definition (including the 30 minute limit.) (I've worked with policymakers on the definition of a "television set" that differentiates it from a "computer monitor". Believe me; there is no perfect definition.)

After the tax goes into place, you'd better believe that manufacturers take a 4.7% price increase seriously. If that makes a competitor's product more competitive, it's a problem. The manufacturer has to decide which is more important to their target market. Low price wins in many cases. (One might believe otherwise, but we don't have access to the sales data. Don't underestimate the effect of a higher price or a tax on sales.)

Some products are market specific. In this case, the US version can ignore the 30 minute limit. Some are global. For these, the tax might only affect a third (or so) of the market, but the overall numbers still might come up better when all products are limited and only the EU products get the tax break.

It really does come down to money. If one can afford an Alexa, EPIC, F5 or C300ii, the 30 minute limit doesn't come into play. We look for less expensive gear, the lower cost is only possible due to higher volume, and corners must be cut to succeed at that level of the market.

The only solution I see is to go back to step 1 and lobby EU policymakers to rescind that tax (or tax still cameras too) and the rest will take care of itself. But given that there is a tax on one of two similar products, stuff like this happens after a series of logical decisions.

[Roger Gunkel]

I understand your points Jon, but the fact remains that from a tax point of view it is a pointless difference given that all lower end video cameras take stills and digital camera take video. A bit like saying a saloon car (sedan) is a private car because it carries people plus luggage, but an estate car (station wagon) is a commercial vehicle because it carries luggage plus people.

The extra selling cost from a manufacturers point of view is also not really relevant as most manufacturers have inhibited and not inhibited cameras for different parts of the world, so could easily make the more expensive non restricted one optional.

Roger

[Brian Drysdale]

If they de-restrict individual cameras the cost difference would probably be more than the 4.9%, it could be 10%, if not more, because of labour & handling costs etc.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

If they de-restrict individual cameras the cost difference would probably be more than the 4.9%, it could be 10%, if not more, because of labour & handling costs etc.

Don't quite understand your post Brian, I am not suggesting that manufacturers derestrict individual cameras. As I have already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, manufacturers already market derestricted versions of their cameras in other parts of the world, so they are existing products.

If I take the Panasonic G4 as an example, it is available in the UK restricted, but in other areas as unrestricted. This has already led to at least one company importing the derestricted version. It doesn't cost the manufacturers any more at all and they could just offer it as an alternative camera with the duty added. This is exactly what happened a few years ago when some manufacturers offered two versions of their cameras one with video and audio in and one without. That was because the EU introduced a 14% duty on cameras that could record video from an external source.

Roger

[Brian Drysdale]

They'd have to import those cameras on an individual basis, they're unlikely to be part of their standard stock in country stock or if they are, they'll change premium prices, rather than the discount prices at many dealers. If they have to de-restrict the firmware, they'll charge you for doing so.

Any changes in how the EU deals with this would have to be taken up in Brussels.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Roger, you've hit the nail on the head... if the camera is available elsewhere, a "gray market" of genuine, but not "genuine" for a region will rapidly develop!

You've perhaps never dealt with bureaucratic silliness (we all have, sometimes you have to blank it out, oh the humanity...), but it's happening more and more as mindless drones are given huge piles of RULES they are told to enforce, half of which they have no idea about, the other half, they just mindlessly enforce because they were told to... but only after they are told they have to enforce them, because previously they had no clue about them and just let them slide... it would make a good comedy sketch, it just happens to affect this one "familiar" area we are familiar with!

I just had a USPS Global Guaranteed Express package (co-op with Fed Ex. GUARANTEED overnight delivery) returned to me after 6 days (5 days AFTER it was to be delivered...) The package was marked "postage", as in NO postage, circled around the part that clearly stated "US Postage prepaid online" in rather noticeably large type, with of course a scannable bar code that was scanned when the package was accepted (so obviously postage WAS paid!). Additionally some genius went around all sides of the box which had joint Global Express Guaranteed/ FedEX USPS issue stickers dutifully applied at the local PO... and scribbled out the "FedEx"....

I actually while trying to locate the "lost" and undelivered parcel identified the idiot drone (sorry, probably unduly insulting drones here) that had mishandled it - her supervisor was rude because I had raised my voice (imagine that... after such incompetence!), and was going to "talk to her"... I have since spoken with a USPS "insider", who told me this has happened multiple times... guess "talking to" doesn't work too well...

NEVER underestimate the idiocy or incompetence that can result once a governmental agency decides something needs to be taxed, stamped, safety labelled, addressed or just generally mucked up!!!


I shoot video with a still camera (even WITH a stupid limit!!!! HA HA, take that!!), and use a TV for a MONITOR!!!

I are a rebel!! <wink>

[Dave Blackhurst]

The real shame is that if manufacturers were to "open" the firmware after the cameras were out for a while, hacks could "fix" the institutionally "broken" stuff with a couple lines of code... and the taxman could strut about and holler, but do naught about it!!