Quickcam Pro 3000 vs Azurewave PAP7501

[gitchnz]

I'm at something of a crossroads at the moment. I've got two cameras, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

First up, the Logitech Quickcam Pro 3000. It's a well-known beast, with a standard 1/4 inch CCD. I've removed the IR filter and subsequently lost it, but that's not going to be a big concern for what I have planned. As is already known, it's very controllable in terms of its settings, even using the driver that ships with Windows 7. Fully configurable shutter speed and gain, and controllable frame rate of video too.

Second, one I bought recently on clearance is a noname device with an Azurewave PAP7501 chip in it. The CCD is about 2/3rds the size of the Quickcam Pro, so would give me a considerably larger image at the same 640x480 resolution. However, the builtin driver that Windows used was rubbish, and after an extensive search, while I did manage to locate a usable driver, it still doesn't give control of the shutter speed. All I can control is the exposure, while it controls the shutter speed. This means I rely on it to choose an appropriate setting for the light available, and also, it's horrible to center and focus planets in when it chooses a slow frame rate which I guess is in the order of 1/5th of a second at times. The Quickcam Pro at least allows for gain (ISO) adjustment so you can center and focus in the now, then change the shutter speed and gain once you're ready to capture.

So in terms of usability, the Quickcam is definitely seeming like the best contender. Except it has a bigger sensor, and I want bigger images. I could go down the barlow lens route (I already have a 2.5x but could get a 5x) but would need an adapter for my eyepiece. Aiming has been a struggle for me, and to throw higher magnification at it is only going to serve to make this harder. 

I need an adapter for it. The issue is, the QC enclosure doesn't allow for a standard eyepiece adapter, as the thread is sunk some way back down the focusing tube. The standard adapters on places like aliexpress have the thread beginning at the base of the adapter, which wouldn't go far enough into the QC to take.

Have others modded their QC3000s so they can take a generic eyepiece adapter successfully? Or do people buy the QC specific ones? I've found the generic ones really cheap and with free shipping, but the QC ones are twice the price and with an additional shipping fee. And it's for my QC, which has a larger CCD so would also need a more powerful barlow lens to yield larger images.

The Azurewave unit with the smaller CCD has a standard webcam lens mount, so could deliver larger images right now if I could only aim it properly, and I suspect that will get much easier once I buy an eyepiece adapter. However, I don't know this for sure as I've not managed to get a planet centered in it for long enough to get it focused and look at the image quality.

I'd appreciate others' thoughts. I know it probably seems I'm debating over pennies compared to what others spend on this, but I'm still relatively new to this and not yet at that stage. Ideally I'd like to get an eyepiece adapter I could use on either unit, but want to know that the generic adapter can work on a quickcam if the focusing tube is shortened.

Thanks

[toxic]

hi gitchnz

i use a qc pro 3000 hd and i took out the lens and glued an old eyepiece tube to the front of it with super glue and you can screw in your filters the the old eyepiece tube, and in the settings for the qc 3000 if you are using it in 640 x 480 you can zoom in 10x with it as it will only be using a small part of its sensor and you can pan and tilt to get your image center.you wont need to use a barllow at least not strait away.

[gitchnz]

toxic, I assume you mean a lifecam 3000 hd (not quickcam). Your signature says lifecam, and I couldn't find any reference to a camera called a quickcam 3000 hd.

I assume you use it without a lens, and that the zoom is fully digital. How big is the sensor on it? Any idea how big the sensor area is when you're zoomed in to 10x? I have to admit, the idea of having a wide view for location of planets is really appealing, then zooming in once I've got it in sight. I just want to get a feel for how large they will be at 640x480 compared to what I'm getting at the moment.