webcam choosing....

[syntax01010]

There are dozens of different companies, makes and models of PC webcams to be bought today. They all boast impressive claims of being better than webcams have ever been in the past...i.e. no grainy pictures, quality sound, fast video, etc. However, I have to admit that i'm both suprised and aggrivated over a few issues. I'm curious if anyone has any advice for a webcam that might fit my needs.

I realize that no webcam, at least at the moment, will be able to record video with the quality of a camcorder or take photos with the quality of a digital camera...but there has to be one that comes at least somewhat close.

I've been a user of the Logitech Pro 4000 webcamera for some time now. I have to admit that I am extremely dissapointed. Not only does Logitech offer godawful customer service, but their camera is false advertised. Right on the box it is listed as being a USB 2.0 camera. This is great and something that I know many people have looked for. Since USB 2.0 offers a huge improvement over 1.1 in speeds and transfer rates.

However, you find, only after you've opened the box and read the included manual(which voids your ability to return the camera to the store)that the camera is only USB 2.0 compatible, not USB 2.0 complient. What does this mean? It means that the camera will still work on a USB 2.0 connection, but it does NOT use USB 2.0 capabilities, it still functions as a USB 1.1 camera, even connected to a 2.0 port. This is a blatant misrepresentation of their product, and this has caused me to be unwilling to trust Logitech with another purchase ever again, especially since this camera cost me $100.00 new.

I advise people to STAY AWAY from it. It's also advertised as being able to take megapixil still shots. It does not do this, all it does is take 640x480 still shots and use software to "fake" a picture that emulates megapixil. The camera does horrible in low light, it has no autofocus feature and no optical zoom. Worse still, Microsoft Netmeeting, as outdated as that software is, is the only live camera software I can find that will actually share live video without it lagging the camera all to hell.

What I am looking for is a webcam that actually does use USB 2.0 or better still, uses firewire and is FULLY 100% complient with that connection, so it is rated to use that connection to its fullest capability, not just be able to connect to it like this horribly advertised Logitech i'm using. I'm also trying to find a webcamera that can compensate for low levels of light and artificial light sources, and if at all possible a camera that has an autofocus. I mean really..... I know that no webcam will ever replace a digital camera/camcorder, but good grief.......auto-focus, optical zoom(where the lense itself zooms), and low light/artificial light compensation are features that standard cameras have had for YEARS now. USB 2.0 and Firewire have always been out for YEARS, so it boggles my mind why there seem to be no webcameras that take advantage of this.

The closest i've found was a webcam called the iBot by Orange Micro, which was produced in both firewire and USB 2.0 versions, but for some reason it seems to no longer be in production. There is also the Apple iSight, but it is not designed to run on Windows, and the best i've found is a generic Firewire camera driver that is "supposed" to work. However, this does not let the iSight work with webcam aware applications like AIM or YahooIM. It's also a costly $150.00 just for the iSight, and an additional $25-30 for the light add-on to enhance its picture quality.

So any thoughts? Advice?

[fillalph]

syntax01010: I bought the Logitech Pro 4000 Conference (comes with mic and headset) for $120. I love it. I find the video is be good and the mic that comes with it is also very good. My girlfriend went home for the summer and I had to stay at university and we use it almost everynight. We talk over Skype and just use MSN for the video part and find it to be great. I haven't used it for still images though as I have a Canon A70 which is so AWESOME!

As far as it not doing good in low light, well I haven't had a problem with it. My dorm room is poorly light and it is great I find!

]Bonkers[

[Lost Soul]

id say look into a cam with a firewire option for faster transfer, and me im running an old logitech, which im about to upgrade to some thing else but i dont know what yet,, but as far as cams go id say look into anything with a firewire cable,, from what ive read those are better then the standard usb ones,,

[Treeman]

Ummm, About the firewire camera. there are known issues with SP2 & Firewire;

My Camcorder has stopped working since installing SP2

I'm still running Sp1 so I don't have any problems. I would make sure if you go the firewire direction that you get verification from the cameras manufacturer, that it will indeed work under SP2.

Here's one site you can look at with good support;

Unibrain

Good Luck,

Treeman

[Guest vcam]

have you try a virtual camera?

[Jeremy]

I've had 3 Logitech's in the last 5 years, so you know what I'd tell you.

[LLXX]

Some of the cheap no-name Chinese ones are surprisingly good... 320x240 @ 30fps from a $15 webcam I had (gave it away since I didn't need it).

[puntoMX]

Logitech STX webcam, 50 bucks retail price and have 640*480 real res., with light enhancement and auto-focus .

[CoffeeFiend]

Logitech STX webcam, 50 bucks retail price and have 640*480 real res., with light enhancement and auto-focus .

Sounds pretty good. As long as the camera does 640x480 @ 30fps, that's the main thing (and decent drivers that don't crash constantly). A good sharp and bright lens and other features like autofocus/tracking and such are all bonuses. For 50$ it's a pretty good deal too - I just might buy one (to replace my old iBot that died after falling too many times on the floor).

15$ might be cheap, and it might not be bad for the money (as in, it does work, and it can't be much worse than most logitech), but 320x240 isn't what I'd call a "good webcam", nor one I'd pick, unless you can't afford something better. Anything not USB2 can't do 640x480 at 30fps, and isn't worth buying IMO - and that includes most logitechs (USB1, cheap and "slow" plastic lens, lots of noise, poor in low light, etc - just mediocre overall), perhaps the newer models don't suck quite as bad though, like that STX which sounds pretty good. I'm surprised to see them make a webcam that's worth using under 100$, as even a fair amount of their cameras over that weren't so great (again, haven't checked their models in a few months, so that might have changed), they were just the same cheapo webcams (no better than that 15$ one), but with some gimmicks added (tracking and such, or more bunded software).

[puntoMX]

Well, syntax01010 is complaining about the 4000pro, the STX is almost the same. No USB 2.0 nut it can get 640*480@30fps on USB 1.1 except in low-light mode. But it’s the first cam that I see for fewer than 50 bucks that has a nice picture. Wana see the cam work? PM me and I’ll show you by MSN messenger that it isn’t that bad.

[Maleko]

personally, ive always gone with Creative products, just personal choice, never had a problem, and the quality is brilliant.

[LLXX]

Be aware of the fact that quite a few of Logitech and other manufacturer's webcams that claim 640x480 or higher resolutions actually contain 320x240 sensors, but use hardware scaling (better than software, but still nowhere near as good as real sensor pixels). I've disassembled a few of these that say "640x480 sensor" in their specifications, but upon checking the sensor chip part #, it turns out to be actually 320x240 but with hardware scaling. Explains why the unscaled output of a cheap 320x240 webcam can look more clear than the scaled 640x480 of a name-brand one.

[tain]

Yeah, that tactic is similar to the digital camera industry's "digital zoom" which is actually a software zoom (crop) and not a lens capability. Most consumers don't understand that fact thanks to clever marketing.

I have a D-Link DCS-5300G and it works well for me.

[puntoMX]

Be aware of the fact that quite a few of Logitech and other manufacturer's webcams that claim 640x480 or higher resolutions actually contain 320x240 sensors, but use hardware scaling (better than software, but still nowhere near as good as real sensor pixels).

Yup, but the STX and up are 640*480 hardware and 30FPS . When I show people the difference between a 15-25 US$ one and a STX, the STX is sold! It has a real camera CCD.