Logitech Webcam Pro 9000 / QuickCam Pro 9000 by Logitech
|
List Price: Our Price: $78.94 You Save: $21.05 (21%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $68.00 (click here) Category: CE See more digital camera details and other models |
|---|
Digital camera reviews of Logitech Webcam Pro 9000 / QuickCam Pro 9000
Digital camera Review: Save yourself $30 and buy this one instead of Vision Pro
Summary: 5 Stars
I've no idea why Logitech markets QuickCam Vision Pro as only Mac compatible, and Webcam Pro 9000 as only Windows compatible. I bought the Pro 9000, connected it to my Mac and it works just fine. I wouldn't be surprised if Vision Pro works just fine on Windows too. According to specifications, the cheaper Pro should be slightly better camera with more features than more expensive Vision Pro. Some of the features of Pro 9000 that depend on Windows-only software might not work when connected to Mac. But on the other hand you won't get them with Vision Pro either, as it also simply uses OS X built-in drivers. There is apparently no additional software provided by Logitech for Vision Pro. Are we seeing Logitech charging us Apple tax here by marketing an almost identical product at much higher price?
The two cameras look almost identical on the outside. The only visible difference seem to be the color of the plastic shell. I actually like the look of black Pro 9000 more.
IMO, if you are deciding between Pro 9000 and Vision Pro for Mac, save yourself $30 and buy the Pro 9000. I can't see any functional difference between the two on the Mac. They are likely exactly the same hardware on the inside, with features requiring Windows-only software not checked on spec pages of Vision Pro. IMO, Logitech should discontinue Vision Pro, and simply put footnote on Pro 9000's spec pages for the few features that require Windows-only software and thus don't work on Mac.
Digital camera Review: Webcam
Summary: 5 Stars
Recd product on time as promised. Have used it everyday and it has worked great.
No complaints, liked it so much i bought a 2nd one!
Digital camera Review: Logitech Pro 9000
Summary: 5 Stars
This camera performed better than expected. Installation was a breeze. Using Windows XP home and am having no problems. Quality is what I would expect from Logitech, outstanding.Digital camera Review: Attempt to Investigate the Difference between Quickcam and Webcam Pro 9000
Summary: 4 Stars
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1LJC17YGLFCKG I got the Quickcam Pro 9000 version, and I found this widely circulated statement of differences, allegedly made by Logitech's employee, on the difference between Quickcam Pro 9000 and Webcam Pro 9000:
--- begin excerpt--
Logitech updated the Quickcam Pro 9000 and released it on August 1st 2009 as the Webcam Pro 9000. The differences are as follows By Ladan Khamsepoor // Sr. Product Marketing Manager, Video Business:
There are a few subtle changes:
- While the QuickCam Pro 9000 offers VGA-quality video at 30 frames per second (high-quality video) on Skype, we made adjustments to ensure the updated Webcam Pro 9000 can perform up to VGA-quality video at 30 FPS on any video application, including Logitech Vid.
- The Webcam Pro 9000 was modified to be capable of adjusting to widescreen format and record 720 pixels (1280?720) at up to 30 FPS.
- Finally, software is no longer required for RightLight. Instead, we\'ve built it into the device, so right out of the box, you\'ll get the best image quality possible, regardless of harsh or dim lighting conditions. Perhaps too much information, but we also adjusted the firmware to make sure that RightLight engages only when necessary.
[...]
---end excerpt
Out of curiosity, I got a frustration free package and compared with a Quickcam version I got a little earlier.
Yes the frustration free package one got recognized by windows 7 as "Webcam Pro 9000" while the earlier version is recognized as "Quickcam Pro 9000". The drivers and softwares specified by Logitech's website appears to be universal and Both cam had a "driver information" showing driver version of 12.10.1110.0. The firmware version reads 5.0.1161 on the Webcam 9000 and 2.96.6009 on the Quickcam, suggesting possible different firmware families than increments of the same firmware. It also may suggest that there are differences in hardware as well.
Testing it in video mode--the quickcam version's flaw wasn't apparent at first, until one investigated closer. The HD video frame on the Webcam version is a little cropped, suggesting it used fewer pixels than the full frame sensor, or only 1280x720 out of the 1600x1200. You can see this when you switch to the 1600x1200 mode. That did not happen with the Quickcam pro 9000. At first I thought the Quickcam gave me a scaled down interpolation of the full resolution video, showing its full wide angle picture, which would have been advantageous over a cropped image on the Webcam version; but then I realized that it is really a scaled up interpolation from 800x450--in other words, full hardware HD video is simply not possible with Quickcam Pro 9000, while it is available on the newer Webcam version.
Despite the less-than-ideal method of using reduced sensor area that produced a cropped image (thereby negating the wide angle lens advantage at full HD setting), I speculate that the Webcam version did this to reduce CPU load for interpolation. Still, I wish a full frame scaled down 720p HD mode is available as an option.
What is more incredible is when I tried to record video. For some reason, the webcam version was able to record smooth HD video at full 1280x720, while the older quickcam version, despite the scale-up interpolation, had a lot of trouble with that resolution setting, or even at 800x450. I use a x61s thinkpad -- hardly speedy by today's standards. However, it goes to show something is done quite differently with the new webcam version, as the results are not even close -- I recorded non-HD videos that looked like still pictures jumping from frame to frame with in-tact audio using the Quickcam version, while the Webcam version was able to record fluid 720p HD videos without problems. Webcam version wins by an unbelievable margin here.
Then the photo test: i imagined both camera will show full resolution in photo mode, or 1600x1200. NOT SO! At 1600x1200, which is supposed to be native resolution for both of these cams, the Quickcam version showed a blurry picture that clearly seems interpolated, or a scaled up version of 800x600. The details are just absent, and looked identical to a 800x600 image. The Webcam was evidently at 2MP with details that cannot be there with interpolation. Why can't the Quickcam version take photos at its native resolution is beyond me.
The above tests made me wonder about these possibilities: 1. the newer driver simply doesn't support Quickcam pro 9000 version fully, and catered to Webcam version instead; 2.Quickcam Pro 9000 had always been a half baked product with these flaws, hence the upgrade; 3.something is wrong with the driver and/or the hardware as tested. If it's either #1 or #2, I find it incredible that Logitech was able to charge close to $100 for the Quickcam Pro 9000 version that doesn't deliver on its HD promises, and performed in reality only slightly better than my old Quickcam fusion.
Testing the cams side by side in real use such as skype and msn, the image quality didn't look all that different -- a little soft than my liking especially for a cam of this price range. AF performance is also similar. There is very little difference that I can discern, other than the ones mentioned above, which is not subtle by any measure.
For what it's worth: the webcam9000 that came in the frustration package is a little scuffed up compared to the Quickcam version I got in a retail package. The plastic on the camera is of a polished/mirror finish, so any hairline scratch/scuff/buffs show up instantly. There was none on the Quickcam Retail, but some on the Frustration Free Packed version wrapped in plastic bag. However I am not sure if it's really related to the packaging or production batches. I am anal retentive in that regard, but for most people it probably doesn't matter. The difference in the amount of plastic and packing material is mind boggling though. For the sake of the environment and savings, frustration free package is a real innovation.
With regards to "built in" right light -- that sounds a bit odd (i.e. it scarcely makes sense), as right light is built into logitech's driver ANYWAY and is always software activated/controlled. On both cams I was offered the option of turning it on or leaving it on always. I believe from the inception, right light was hardware dependent (earlier Quickcams simply couldn't support it), suggesting there were hardware involvement in the cameras anyway. The fact that you don't need driver support to run it doesn't make much sense--the webcam doesn't run without its driver.
Which is better? Webcam Pro 9000. The advantage over the older Quickcam version is significant--unless it's due to software/driver screw-up, which is a real possibility.
I am open to corrections and would love to learn what others find.
Digital camera Review: Logitech 9000 pro
Summary: 2 Stars
This camera produced beautiful pictures . However after a short period of time - an hour or two-it ceased to work and I had to either reload the software or reboot my computer. A call to Logitech tech support , answered by a call centre in the Philipines was wholly unsatisfactory, actually a little insulting. After repeated rebooting, I tried the Logitech support again, and this time the Nova Scotia based call centre was very helpful. Still the problem re-appeared, so I gave up and returned the product to Amazon. I re-installed my Logitech E2500, which works very well, but does not have the picture quality of the 9000.The Amazon return process -which I had never had to use before- is very customer friendly, and works well.