"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
williamwright wrote:
On 09/03/2020 15:35, T i m wrote:

If you can get power to them you should obviously not use wireless
ones.

Obviously? How does the difficulty of running cables compare with the
potential ease of finding power local to the cameras?

Where does he say he can find local power?

It's no more trouble to run RG59+2 than it is to run a power-only
cable.

Except he's expressly stated he won't be running any 'data'/ signal'
cable

For no good reason. That's my point. He has a misapprehension that I
have corrected.


What if say it's a listed building,

What if it's a little house in the forest made of chocolate? What if
it's an ice hotel and will melt when Spring comes? What if he lives in a
****ing cardboard box?

what if it's like my garden shed. It's fed with 200ft of underground mains
cable. No duct,.

Or my house where its trivial to get power from
close to the camera but a real bugger to run a
network cable from the camera to the router.

Tho I spose with only 2 cameras and dedicated
recorders so cheap, you can make a case for
having one per camera except for the hassle
of having to look for evidence of the perp on
two different recorders instead of just the one.