A PTZ IP Cameras detailed review!
Here,a PTZ IP cameras detailed review.
Highlights: reasonable value for the money – good hardware, better than WVC200, lousy software – having used it for some months, I would buy another, there is however still lots of room for improvement.
Details: I got myself the camera in December, 2008. Just before using the WVC210, I’ve used two WVC200s. The 210 is an improvement over the 200 – better color, better image in low light, two-way audio, and I haven’t had to reboot the 210 (the 200s are prone to lockups, occasionally). I use the "Kiwi Syslog Daemon" with all the cameras. And, the 210 audit trail is a lot improved within the 200. One key logging feature the 210 has, is the ability to audit who logged in/out (and when) – the 200 does not do that. If you feel about infrastructure security, this can be a plus for the 210 along with a HUGE mark against the 200. Such as the 200, the 210 does not do motion detection – both of them look at overall light level alterations in a defined region. Labeling the function as "motion detection" is false advertising.
Two outdoor examples: (1) if you setup a screen region and turn up the sensitivity, alterations in sunlight (brought on by clouds coming and going) will trigger a false motion-detection event (2) after turning on the gain to get rid of false sunlight triggers, objects (person, dog, car) that appears small at a distance can pass through the region without detection. Both cameras use an ActiveX control to view/listen to video/audio. The problem is, most public internet computers block the install of ActiveX controls, if you wish to check up on your camera(s) during vacation (off page), you better have your laptop along. Additionally, neither the 200 nor 210 accommodate this known shortcoming – for instance, both could easily possess a firmware upgrade to allow the consumer to see a snapshot JPG of the current image (once the ActiveX interface isn’t available) – neither camera has this feature. As for the monitoring software bundled using the 210 and 200 products, here Cisco has done a terrible job because it takes over the ownership of those products from Linksys. The "Video Monitoring System v18.104.22.168" bundled using the 210 is not backward compatible with the 200. Adding insult, the interface is user-hostile, not letting you size it or move it – it has to be in the upper left corner from the screen and it wastes lots of screen real-estate. The "Monitor v22.214.171.124" bundled using the 200 has a smaller footprint and it enables you to size and move the interface. It’s forward compatible towards the 210, but video only (not audio). It also gives you much more configuration control when you need it including volume control and on-the-fly record / stop / playback. In a nutshell, the interface of the old software is a lot better than the brand new stuff. For a moment have a mixture of WVC200 and WVC210 cameras, and when you need to use the monitoring software to record surveillance video, you’ll have to make use of the software that accompany the WVC200. You can search for e-pinions by me for reviews from the WVC200 for more information about pros/cons of the group ofs.
I want to the PTZ IP cameras detailed review helpful to you!