PAU L OCKENDEN
Looking for a cloud-connected camera? Then you’re in luck, as Paul concludes his roundup of the latest “cams”
Looking for a cloud-connected camera? Then you’re in luck, as Paul concludes his round-up of the latest “cams”.
As promised last month, I’m going to look at a few more cloud-based cameras in this column. On the desk in front of me I have a Nest Cam, a Ring Stick Up Cam (complete with solar panel accessory), a Y-Cam Evo HD, and finally, the new Arlo Pro I mentioned last month. All apart from the latter were kindly loaned to me by the folks at Vesternet.
Let’s begin with the Arlo Pro. I’m using the new camera with my original Arlo base station, so I’m not able to test the siren or the local USB recording that the complete updated system provides; I’m just focusing (excuse the pun) on the updated camera. And I’m sure the fact that it will work in existing installations will please those who have already invested in Arlo setups.
The new camera is bigger and heavier than its predecessor, but it can be used with the same magnetic mounts, since it has the same circular “dent” in the body. As a result of the extra weight, I find it can wobble a little more when used outdoors, especially in a strong wind, but not to the point where it causes problems.
Since I’ve been testing the new camera, I’ve noticed that it requires a stronger wireless signal than the old one. I had one original camera that was right on the edge of reception, but when I swapped it for the Arlo Pro, I couldn’t get a connection at all. A second camera was mid-range with the old Arlo system, but when I swapped it for the Arlo Pro I began to see break-up in my video recordings. Perhaps these problems would be resolved if I’d also used the new base station? I’ll let you know as soon as I get access to a complete Pro system.
There are several benefits to the new camera, the most obvious that it can handle audio as well as video. This not only means that your video clips will be recorded with a soundtrack, but that you can trigger the recordings from sound pickup as well as motion – perhaps a door slamming or a vehicle approaching. The audio facility is two-way, so if you receive an alert that there’s someone at your front door, you can see it’s the Amazon guy and tell him to leave the package in the garden shed.
I mentioned last month that with the original Arlo system there exists a bit of a lag between motion detection and the start of recording. In fact, it’s one of the main complaints by users. This is an issue you’ll find to a greater or lesser extent with all batterypowered security cameras, but the delay is greatly reduced with the Arlo Pro. So much so, in fact, that I suspect it won’t be an issue for most people.
What else is new with the Arlo Pro? Well a significant difference is that it now contains a rechargeable battery. It’s a custom battery pack, though, so you can’t just insert standard rechargeable batteries. And nor can you plug the charger into the battery pack; you have to charge it either in the camera (which probably means taking the whole thing down), or you can buy a separate charging station and plug the battery into that. This all feels a little awkward to me.
The micro-USB port used to plug the charger into the camera can also be used to permanently power the device. Although, frankly, I can’t see the point – if you don’t need a truly wire-free camera then there are better options out there, some of which I’ll come on to shortly.
All in all, the Arlo Pro is a worthy improvement over the original model. The two-way audio and faster startup times are especially welcome. But with more flexible charging options and better wireless sensitivity, it could have been even better still.
Ring ring
Sticking with completely wireless cameras, let’s look next at the Ring Stick Up Cam. By the way, notice how so many of these devices are now called “cam” rather than “camera” – there’s a definite trend here.
Ring is a company best known for its connected doorbell range, but given the fact that these feature a built-in camera, it was a logical brand extension to build a standalone wireless “cam”. The Stick Up Cam is suitable for outdoor use, although I note that the manufacturer describes it as “weather-resistant” rather than waterproof. It might be best to mount it under the eaves, or somewhere that provides similar protection from driving rain.
The key difference over the Arlo cameras (or, indeed, Blink – which I also mentioned last month) is that you don’t need a base station. The Ring Stick Up Cam hops onto your Wi-Fi – and that’s it. Much like the other two systems, recordings are stored in the cloud. However, there’s no free option with Ring; if you don’t stump up a monthly fee of £2.50 then you’ll only be able to use the camera in “live view” mode, turning it into a very expensive peep-hole. It’s important to factor in the subscription cost when comparing these products. Actually, £2.50 isn’t bad; it’s the price of a coffee. Some other camera systems have much higher subscription charges, as we’ll see in a moment.
Design-wise, the Stick Up Cam is less discreet than the Arlo or Blink cameras, so you might be concerned that people may notice it and steal it. But Ring offers to replace any stolen cameras for free (if the theft has been reported to the police).
One fascinating optional extra is a solar panel, which keeps the internal battery topped up. The fact that you don’t need access to change or charge batteries means you can mount the camera in places that are harder to reach. Throughout my time testing it, I haven’t noticed the battery level drop below 90% with the solar panel attached – even on cloudy days.
As is usual with such items, the Ring Stick Up Cam is controlled via an app, either Android or iOS. There’s also a web interface, but that provides access only to the (paid-for) recordings; you can’t use the liveview mode from a web browser. This is an annoying limitation. I’ve also noticed that, using the app, live-view can sometimes take quite a while to connect to the camera – usually around ten seconds, but it can take up to a minute.
The night-time view uses infrared LEDs to illuminate the scene, but, curiously, it doesn’t switch to monochrome mode in the way of most other cameras. You can still see some colours, although you shouldn’t rely on them for identification purposes. A black fleece jacket that I was wearing looked light blue at night!
Like the Arlo Pro, the Ring Stick Up Cam features two-way audio, and the quality is great – probably the best of the wireless cameras I’ve tested. Motion detection, on the other hand, can be laggy. It’s on a par with the original Arlo cameras. Unless you position the device carefully, you’ll find yourself recording lots of people as they just walk out of frame.
Ring has created a well-made, solid device, and in the box you’ll find everything you need – not just the usual screws and Rawlplugs, but also a screwdriver and a masonry drill bit! I’m still undecided whether that’s truly helpful or just a bit gimmicky, but let’s give Ring the benefit of the doubt.
So, overall it’s a great product. If the recording delay could be improved and a basic free tier provided for cloud recordings, the Ring Stick Up Cam would move to near the top of my list.
Next up is the Nest Cam. It’s important to note that the version I’m looking at here is the indoor model. The outdoor version is essentially the same thing, but with waterproofing and a longer power lead. Actually, there’s a small difference with the hardware, too: the indoor version uses 2.4GHz and 5GHz Wi-Fi, whereas the outdoor version is old-school 2.4GHz-only. Although, confusingly, in the USA the outdoor model does 5GHz as well. To be fair, because of the range limitations of 5GHz, you’d probably have to use 2.4GHz outdoors anyway. It certainly isn’t something to worry about.
Since the Nest Cam has a permanent power supply, it’s able to work slightly differently to the other cameras I’ve looked at so far. The latter have all used PIR detectors to wake up the camera on sensing warm bodies. But when armed, the Nest Cam’s camera is active all the time, and looking for movement based on changes in the actual picture it sees. This provides added flexibility.
Now, Nest is better known for its wireless thermostats and smoke alarms. The cameras came latter (Nest bought a company called Dropcam), and you get the impression that it’s been somewhat shoehorned into an existing infrastructure. Control is via an app and a website, but at times both can seem a little clunky. It probably makes more sense if you already have other Nest services, but when used purely for camera control, the Nest Cam isn’t as slick or as intuitive as the others here.
Without a subscription you get only a live view. A cloud option called Nest Aware is available: £8 a month provides ten days of recording; £24 a month allows 30 days of recording.
“The fact that you don’t need access to change or charge batteries means you can mount it in places that are harder to reach”
“Even without the cloud subscription, the Nest Cam is useful because the quality of the image is excellent”
Yes, you read that right – £24 per month. Or £240 if you pay for a whole year in advance. There’s a 50% discount on the subscription for additional cameras, but to run a six-camera setup will still cost a staggering £840 per year.
With other cameras offering free cloud storage, the price seems excessive. However, with a Nest camera you’re potentially recording a lot more than you would with one of the battery-powered cameras. You see, it doesn’t just upload clips to the cloud when motion is detected; the Nest Cam records constantly. As a result, the company must surely be using far more storage (it’s hosted on a combination of Amazon and Google cloud platforms). I suspect that accounts for at least some of the high subscription price.
This constant recording will eat into your monthly broadband bandwidth, and could pose a problem if you use a capped service. Typical use is around 60GB per month, but it can peak at up to 380GB if you select the highest quality. You certainly wouldn’t want to use the Nest Cam if you rely on a mobile connection for your data!
Even without the cloud subscription, the Nest Cam is useful because the quality of the image is excellent, and the streamed video works well. You can even embed it in an iframe on your website. But add the Nest Aware cloud subscription and things move up to another level completely. For example, without the subscription you’ll receive alerts when the camera sees movement, but with Nest Aware you can define “zones” within the image that trigger alerts. This is possible as the image processing happens in the cloud.
I really like the Nest Cam. It’s solidly built, displays superb image quality, can use even the weakest of Wi-Fi signals, and (when used with Nest Aware) offers constant recording – the only camera here to do so. I also like that you can control the LED on the camera from the app; in some situations it’s important that people can see they’re being recorded, but for other uses you want a device that doesn’t draw attention to itself.
I just wish the subscription costs were more reasonable. £240 a year running costs for a £150 camera is hard to swallow.
Why the Y-Cam?
My final option, the Evo HD from London-based Y-Cam, offers much lower running costs. And I must say it’s great to have a British product in this roundup.
The first thing that strikes you is the size of the camera – it’s tiny. Matchboxsized. It’s super-light, too. So much so that I was tempted at first to just stick it to a wall using VHB tape. Unfortunately, this isn’t possible because the micro-USB power connector is on the back, rather than the side. You really need to use it with the supplied stand or wall mount, which is also tiny.
As usual, there are Android and iOS apps available, along with a website. The Android app works well, as does the web interface, but I struggled a little with the iOS app. It seemed sluggish, and would often miss the first few seconds when playing back a captured video clip. I think it needs some more time in the QA lab.
In fact, sluggishness is something that seems to crop up at various places in the Y-Cam system. Even when using the website, it would sometimes take quite a few seconds to connect to the live video stream. On occasion, I also found that I’d receive a notification around 20 minutes after a clip had been recorded. At other times, I’d receive a notification of movement, but it would then take a while before the clip showed up in the app.
This is a shame, because in most other respects the Y-Cam Evo has plenty going for it, including the fact that you get seven days of cloud storage for free. There’s no 24/7 recording, as with the Nest Cam, but for most people that won’t be an issue. Especially since the camera uses an internal buffer, so the recordings it saves start a few seconds before the motion is detected. There’s no control over the flashing LED when recording, though, so despite the small size, this camera will never be discreet. Two more pluses: the on-board speaker provides two-way audio and audio quality is pretty good, too.
So what’s my final verdict? If you want an outdoor camera then I’d suggest the Arlo Pro. For indoor use, it’s a toss-up between Blink and the Y-Cam Evo. For 24/7 cloud recording, go for the Nest Cam – just be aware that you’ll need deep pockets.