Best cloud outdoor security camera setup

[atuli1]

I'm looking into purchasing a set of 3-5 outdoor security cameras for my home.

 

Specifically, I am looking for a wifi enabled camera that has a motion activated lights and recording, notifications, two way audio, and a built in siren.

 

Currently I'm between the Ring Floodlight Cam Wired Pro and the Eufy Floodlight Cam 2 Pro.

 

I'm open to any brand, Ring and Eufy are just what I've been able to narrow the search down to based on the features I'm looking for.

 

I'm aware of the downsides of relying on a company like the above and having to pay a subscription fee for use/storage. I'm just looking for something with simple setup and no maintenance.

 

I already have Google wifi and Nest thermostats so I would love to just get the Nest Cam with Floodlight but its lacking a siren.

 

I already have a Ring doorbell, so it would be nice to have all cameras on one system, but I'm also willing to switch to a Eufy doorbell if both the cameras and doorbell are solid.

 

Biggest downside with Ring is that its 1080p. And I'll be mounting these 15+ feet off the ground so not sure if the quality will be good enough.

 

Eufy has their problems with unencrypted recordings being accessible (and supposedly even a stream could be accessed), but I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect an intruder to know about it and gain such access.

 

Thank you in advance for your guidance.

[Takumidesh]

I have ring cameras (floodlights) and I would never ever ever recommend them to anyone.

 

my gripes:

 

ZERO functionality if your internet is down (not local network, just the internet)

LARGE BLUE FLASHING LIGHT on the camera when it loses connection, effectively telling everyone nearby that the camera is offline, and likely other systems are not functioning in your house.

Motion detection is painfully slow. since the camera does not actually record unless motion is detected, half of the action is gone by the time the camera starts recording.

floodlights toggling causing the video feed to freeze.

microphone quality is dog water.

locked down home automation integration.

no sdcard option for local backup.

no way to bulk download videos (you have to download individual clips)

no way to record extended segments - if someone is walking around the yard for lets say five to ten minutes, it makes tons of shorter clips that you have to stitch together, and the beginning and end of each clip can have time gaps.

 

recently (six months ago) my car was broken into. the floodlights didn't turn on until the perps got the door of the second car open, like 15 seconds, and when the light finally turned on and the dude looked up at the camera, the video feed is freezes for about a second so no clear shot of their face is recorded. since there is no local recording, that is the best I have, a blurry barely 720p video of the second half of the break in. honestly terrible, especially for a service I pay a subscription for.

 

Honestly ring is one of the few products where I have real buyers remorse, and I really really do not understand how they became such a household name.

 

[atuli1]

1 hour ago, Takumidesh said:

I have ring cameras (floodlights) and I would never ever ever recommend them to anyone.

 

my gripes:

 

ZERO functionality if your internet is down (not local network, just the internet)

LARGE BLUE FLASHING LIGHT on the camera when it loses connection, effectively telling everyone nearby that the camera is offline, and likely other systems are not functioning in your house.

Motion detection is painfully slow. since the camera does not actually record unless motion is detected, half of the action is gone by the time the camera starts recording.

floodlights toggling causing the video feed to freeze.

microphone quality is dog water.

locked down home automation integration.

no sdcard option for local backup.

no way to bulk download videos (you have to download individual clips)

no way to record extended segments - if someone is walking around the yard for lets say five to ten minutes, it makes tons of shorter clips that you have to stitch together, and the beginning and end of each clip can have time gaps.

 

recently (six months ago) my car was broken into. the floodlights didn't turn on until the perps got the door of the second car open, like 15 seconds, and when the light finally turned on and the dude looked up at the camera, the video feed is freezes for about a second so no clear shot of their face is recorded. since there is no local recording, that is the best I have, a blurry barely 720p video of the second half of the break in. honestly terrible, especially for a service I pay a subscription for.

 

Honestly ring is one of the few products where I have real buyers remorse, and I really really do not understand how they became such a household name.

 

I'm sorry to hear that, but thank you for sharing your experience. I guess Ring may not be the way to go then.

 

Did you end up switching to another camera system?

[Takumidesh]

1 hour ago, atuli1 said:

I'm sorry to hear that, but thank you for sharing your experience. I guess Ring may not be the way to go then.

 

Did you end up switching to another camera system?

not yet, though I am working towards a POE setup with ubiquity equipment.

[Roswell]

Eufy doesn't require any subscription costs, they're also more affordable in comparison to Nest/Ring.

 

Their controversy is quite a bit overblown IMO. Anyone with two brain cells knew that remote access to recordings was going to have to go through external servers, there's no elegant way around that. The live stream exploit was concerning until you realize that attackers need all sorts of information/access that they'll never realistically have unless they start unscrewing your cameras at your home.

[Takumidesh]

On 1/21/2023 at 3:23 PM, Roswell said:

there's no elegant way around that

There is no reason it needs to go through a remote server.

There is absolutely easy ways to do this, that is what uPnP does.

 

The danger of upnp in my opinion is no worse than the danger of any given 3rd party giving up the goose.

[Roswell]

12 minutes ago, Takumidesh said:

There is no reason it needs to go through a remote server.

There is absolutely easy ways to do this, that is what uPnP does.

 

The danger of upnp in my opinion is no worse than the danger of any given 3rd party giving up the goose.

The gaping holes left in your network setting up direct push notifications/video requests/whatever would be extremely reckless.

[Takumidesh]

19 minutes ago, Roswell said:

The gaping holes left in your network setting up direct push notifications/video requests/whatever would be extremely reckless.

One hole. not multiple. and that hole is as strong as the software running on the cameras, which is already the case with 3rd party servers.

 

The webserver for the cameras would need one port forwarded.

It isn't any different than the thousands of other things that us upnp, like game consoles for example.

 

and if you don't want to use upnp, port forwarding is as easy as one setting change.