TRENDnet TV-IP410WN RJ45 SecurView Wireless N Pan/Tilt/Zoom Internet Camera $100

Why would they put all the bells and whistles on this IP camera -- such as N wireless, PTZ functions -- and then put a rinky-dink 640 X 480 sensor on the friggin' thing? It's like putting a 2-cycle push mower engine in a Cadillac. CMOS sensors purchased in bulk at that resolution must cost what now, a quarter? A dime? And 4X3 is a dying aspect ratio. Finally, how much bandwidth could 640 X 480 use? Maybe 1 mb of the 150 mbps available on an n connection if encoded with industry standard codecs?

Sadly, they don't even tell you the resolution of the camera -- which would be the FIRST thing I would want to know about ANY camera -- on newegg's website.

^ All good points. But let's face it, you're never going to find *good* IP cameras at this price level. You need to step up considerably to find the something beyond basic VGA quality, perhaps $250 or more. Even if you did, they’d yank out some other feature(s) to compensate. Personally, I find the lack of auto-focus most annoying, esp. w/ a camera that supports PTZ. I could almost live w/ the lesser image quality if I could have auto-focus. But something always has to give at this price level. You never get anything close to all you want.

Quote from ThatsNotADeal : Why would they put all the bells and whistles on this IP camera -- such as N wireless, PTZ functions -- and then put a rinky-dink 640 X 480 sensor on the friggin' thing?

Who makes a higher resolution PTZ camera in this price range? Thanks.

Quote from dealstorm : Who makes a higher resolution PTZ camera in this price range? Thanks.

Nobody I know of, but then again I won't buy a Cadillac with a lawn mower engine even if it's $10K less than a Cadillac with a standard engine.

The more I think about my rant above, however, the more I realize that I am not the demographic that this product is aimed at. I'm kind of a resolution snob, so I would expect a better picture than this cam provides. But this camera is for security purposes, and the lower the resolution, the less overall storage space it will take to store video. There's a tradeoff between better resolution and more archived video storage, and I'm sure that's accepted in the surveilance industry.

Quote from ThatsNotADeal : Nobody I know of, but then again I won't buy a Cadillac with a lawn mower engine even if it's $10K less than a Cadillac with a standard engine. The more I think about my rant above, however, the more I realize that I am not the demographic that this product is aimed at. I'm kind of a resolution snob, so I would expect a better picture than this cam provides. But this camera is for security purposes, and the lower the resolution, the less overall storage space it will take to store video. There's a tradeoff between better resolution and more archived video storage, and I'm sure that's accepted in the surveilance industry.

There's a tradeoff among all the features at this price range.

Most users are not trying to do facial recognition or even capture license plates. The user wants to know: how is my kid/dog/cat, or is there someone in my home when it should be unoccupied. In these scenarios, features such as PTZ, low light and wireless are as or more important than high resolution or even efficient archiving.

Quote from dealstorm : There's a tradeoff among all the features at this price range. Most users are not trying to do facial recognition or even capture license plates. The user wants to know: how is my kid/dog/cat, or is there someone in my home when it should be unoccupied. In these scenarios, features such as PTZ, low light and wireless are as or more important than high resolution or even efficient archiving.

Conceded.

All I'm saying is that HD sensors aren't that much more expensive than SD sensors, and virtually all of the rest of the assembly would be the same.

I've long wondered about the resolution thing. If you want a high-res IP camera, you have to step up to the $500+ cameras. Seeing how a 1080p-capable webcam can be had for under $70 and low-end digicams with 6+MP sensors can be had for under $80, it's clear that high-res sensors can be obtained relatively cheaply. So it's disappointing that the Foscams and the Trendnets and all the other Chinese clones are so busy cloning each other's 640x480 designs (hello!? it's 2012!) that nobody has bothered to produce a camera to fill the void between the $80 crap cameras and the $500 professional cameras. Perhaps nobody wants to go first because they know the competition will clone it almost immediately?

Offer an IP camera capable of 1280x720 or 1920x1080, even at low frame rates, for under $200 and they'll sell briskly. Price it at $150 or less and they'll fly off the shelves.