Perhaps it’s expecting too much that a $140 wireless network cam work well. Image is blurry and fuzzy. The WiFi signal is weak – other WiFi devices I place in the same location have no problem, it’s not a dead spot: my base station is 15 feet away in the room below. But the NC320W has no diagnostic capabilites in the web interface to measure WiFi signal strength or quality, so I call tell what’s going on. In fact it has no diagnostic capabilities at all – either file upload works or it doesn’t, either WAP works or it doesn’t, etc; good luck figuring out what you did wrong if you’re not an expert. Never was able to get the ActiveX interface to work, but I prefer Java. The Java plugin is compatible with most browsers, at least.
You also don’t get: a very wide angle field of view, a camera that will work well in sunlight, a camera that will work well in low light levels, or autofocus (you’ll have to stand next to the cam with a laptop), but I did not expect those features for this price. Still, a disappointment.
Rating: 1 / 5
I think this is a reasonable product at this price. I have been successfully having the camera turn on for a few days without crashing the internal web server. Also, I seem to have much better luck on the streaming, I had as many as 4 concurrent viewers without any problem and 2 of the 4 viewers are from Internet. (I have a fast internet connection and a very reliable wireless signal). Like everything else, don’t expect this will work for everyone as different people have different expectations. Setup and configuration is straight forward and simple for me, but then again, I have a lot of background in networking.
I have looked at other cameras before and this one seems to have reasonable picture in a low light room. Granted, very noticeable amount of noises, but this is not a $300 high end security camera. After all, don’t expect this to be a reliable 24×7 device or provide you minute details on the video.
Rating: 4 / 5
Update: 28 March 2005: Comparing two web cameras. I originally bought the Linksys WVC54G and now have the Hawkings NC320W. Both are very good for senior monitoring purposes. I now prefer web cameras which use Java applets (NC320W) instead of ActiveX (WVC54G). There are situations and browsers that simply can’t use ActiveX and thus can’t display images. The quality of both web cams is suitable for senior monitoring. Expect image quality to fall off in low light. The WVC54G has a wider field of view. This can be important in situations where you’ll have to buy two NC320W to see everything whereas only one WVC54G is needed. I am now using three NC320W and viewing using Firefox browser. Warning: setting up a router to handle multiple web cameras needs a near router expert. The NC320W may soon become obsoleted by the newer and cheaper HNC230G (not released as of this date). I recommend setting up the cameras using static IP addresses so power outages won’t cause new addresses to be reassigned.
True Story. Everyday I check on mom to make sure she’s ok. While on vacation in Australia, I tuned in at the very moment she fell off the couch in Chicago. Using Skype, I called the senior home to have someone help her get up. Although she could have slid over to the phone and called for assistance, the important thing is that I learned she falls and can’t get up by herself, and she hasn’t been telling us. The WVC54G works well for this application. I can even see which DVD she’s watching. I had to open port 1024 to get it working so it’s not plug and play. Once running, it has never gone down, very important. My only complaint is that the auto white balance isn’t true. Colors and lighting are somewhat off.
Rating: 5 / 5
Perhaps it’s expecting too much that a $140 wireless network cam work well. Image is blurry and fuzzy. The WiFi signal is weak – other WiFi devices I place in the same location have no problem, it’s not a dead spot: my base station is 15 feet away in the room below. But the NC320W has no diagnostic capabilites in the web interface to measure WiFi signal strength or quality, so I call tell what’s going on. In fact it has no diagnostic capabilities at all – either file upload works or it doesn’t, either WAP works or it doesn’t, etc; good luck figuring out what you did wrong if you’re not an expert. Never was able to get the ActiveX interface to work, but I prefer Java. The Java plugin is compatible with most browsers, at least.
You also don’t get: a very wide angle field of view, a camera that will work well in sunlight, a camera that will work well in low light levels, or autofocus (you’ll have to stand next to the cam with a laptop), but I did not expect those features for this price. Still, a disappointment.
Rating: 1 / 5
cheap camera, does what is says not much more….
a good toy, I would not recommend it for any real security purposes ( it would make a ok baby monitor although it does not work well in low light )
it seems to run the same software (& firmware) as the D-Link DCS-900 10/100TX Home Security Internet Camera
Rating: 2 / 5
I think this is a reasonable product at this price. I have been successfully having the camera turn on for a few days without crashing the internal web server. Also, I seem to have much better luck on the streaming, I had as many as 4 concurrent viewers without any problem and 2 of the 4 viewers are from Internet. (I have a fast internet connection and a very reliable wireless signal). Like everything else, don’t expect this will work for everyone as different people have different expectations. Setup and configuration is straight forward and simple for me, but then again, I have a lot of background in networking.
I have looked at other cameras before and this one seems to have reasonable picture in a low light room. Granted, very noticeable amount of noises, but this is not a $300 high end security camera. After all, don’t expect this to be a reliable 24×7 device or provide you minute details on the video.
Rating: 4 / 5
Update: 28 March 2005: Comparing two web cameras. I originally bought the Linksys WVC54G and now have the Hawkings NC320W. Both are very good for senior monitoring purposes. I now prefer web cameras which use Java applets (NC320W) instead of ActiveX (WVC54G). There are situations and browsers that simply can’t use ActiveX and thus can’t display images. The quality of both web cams is suitable for senior monitoring. Expect image quality to fall off in low light. The WVC54G has a wider field of view. This can be important in situations where you’ll have to buy two NC320W to see everything whereas only one WVC54G is needed. I am now using three NC320W and viewing using Firefox browser. Warning: setting up a router to handle multiple web cameras needs a near router expert. The NC320W may soon become obsoleted by the newer and cheaper HNC230G (not released as of this date). I recommend setting up the cameras using static IP addresses so power outages won’t cause new addresses to be reassigned.
True Story. Everyday I check on mom to make sure she’s ok. While on vacation in Australia, I tuned in at the very moment she fell off the couch in Chicago. Using Skype, I called the senior home to have someone help her get up. Although she could have slid over to the phone and called for assistance, the important thing is that I learned she falls and can’t get up by herself, and she hasn’t been telling us. The WVC54G works well for this application. I can even see which DVD she’s watching. I had to open port 1024 to get it working so it’s not plug and play. Once running, it has never gone down, very important. My only complaint is that the auto white balance isn’t true. Colors and lighting are somewhat off.
Rating: 5 / 5