In-car cameras, any opinions/experience?

[Lokiel]

I'm thinking about getting an in-car camera for my DD mazda SP23 since I see way too many drongos on my daily commute and I figure one day I'll be able to use the footage if I have an accident (or to just report complete dicks - some of them really need to be off the road).

Does anyone have one that they can provide feedback on, such as what's a good feature and what's not, what's junk and what "just works".

I'm leaning towards this since it also has a reverse parking camera: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HD-1080P-In-Car-Rearview-Mirror-4-3-Monitor-Dash-Cam-Recorder-Camera-Dual-lens-/111665975465?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_15&hash=item19ffcf90a9

This one lists languages as English and Russian - I've watched enough of those Russian car accident videos so figure if it's from Russia, it's been proven.

[Trackphotos]

Most dual-camera options are pretty poor quality apparently. Typically the quality of at least one of the sensors will be too low to give you a legible licence plate unless they're directly behind you, close and in good light.

I previously used a Black DR400HDII, and it was pretty decent. The video quality was nice, a little dull in colours but otherwise good. Sharp, the usual barrel distortion but nothing terrible. The weak point was the audio quality, it was very muffled. Meant you had to speak the NATO alphabet out loud in case the camera doesn't pick up the rego plate, speaking the plate normally you end up with a lot of confused letters. It last around 18 months before it began to corrupt video files, I suspect due to heat. The car was kept in the sun every day, so it wasn't a huge surprise.

Now I use a Mini 0805. The sound is fantastic, very clear even with loud music, bass etc. Video is more colourful than the Blackvue was, but seems to suffer from some compression artifacts that make things in the distance less distinct than the Blackvue. It's maybe a bit soft focus-wise, but good in daylight and as good as the Blackvue was at night with regard to rego plate legibility.

Both are 1080p30, both have GPS at least as an option.

Comparison between the two, had them mounted side by side:



And a rough idea of how the quality from the 0805 suffers once cars get a bit far away:

[Lokiel]

Thanks for that.

Here's the main reason for me NOT wanting GPS in the unit:
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dash-cam/
"After covering dash cams for more than a year, I haven’t found any reason to value GPS functionality. That said, a majority of manufacturers have added GPS chipsets to their cameras as an enticing upsell, but I cannot imagine a scenario in which the data would be beneficial. Actually, that additional info could be a problem.

Going back to the basic purpose of a dash cam (evidence in case of an accident), there is generally no argument over the location. Besides visual cues from the footage like road signs, you wouldn’t flee the scene of the collision—unless you were the perpetrator, in which case, the dash cam would only prove your transgressions.

Cams with GPS typically calculate and record your estimated speed. This can potentially be a bad thing. For instance, you’re involved in a collision for which the other driver is inarguably at fault as the video shows, but miles back while approaching the intersection, you were, however benignly, breaking the speed limit by five or ten miles per hour. That information would go into consideration when the insurance company or police reviewed the tape.

We don’t condone unsafe driving, but your insurer and local police follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit. Basically, GPS has almost no discernible benefit but a considerable potential for self-incrimination."

[Apu]

I've been thinking about this as well...but I need to fit them to 3 or 4 cars and therefore needed to seriously think about budget so started to think about what was really important and quality of video wasn't really going to be that important.

My reasoning is that you don't really need a high definition video of the accident occurring unless it's a hit and run...even then, it should be visible given the close range. You just need to be able to see the idiot doing the wrong thing, and then get out and take a bunch of pictures with your phone.

At the same time, I don't value GPS. I mean, if you have an accident...you can't figure out where you are? Plus you only want to capture sufficient evidence to point the finger at the idiot...and not to incriminate yourself!

What is important (to me) is a sufficiently wide angle, video looping and that the camera knows when to store the recording when it detects an impact.

NRMA has a members special ~$80 for a camera that retails for ~$150. Haven't really had time to explore that further.

[hks_kansei]

I've had a few so far that I bought with a work bonus giftcard thing from officeworks.

The first was a pair of Uniden ones (can't remember the model sorry)
And well, disappointed is an understatement.....

Camera 1: all looked fine in box, plug it in and seems to work. set date etc.
Shut car off, camera shuts off, no problem, car back on.... camera has blanked everything, date, time, etc.
Despite the box clearly saying it has a battery inside to allow it to remember info, and to record a few minutes with the car off, the camera simply wouldn't stay on (I swear it had no battery at all)

I Charged it overnight, thinking maybe it was flat.. no difference.

Camera 2: same brand, same model.
Same problems.


I took them both back and instead bought the "Navig8r CrashcamHD" (well, a pair of them, one for my car, one for the gfs)

One in my car has worked flawlessly since day 1, video is clear etc, sound good enough.
Only minor flaw is that in the heat of summer a small panel on the front has warped a little and sits proud. DOesn't effect the function.

The other camera also works fine, however the charger stopped working, I have no idea why (it was in the Kingswood, which has a few "interesting" bits of wiring from the previous owner)
The camera still works perfectly fine, I use it in my car now.


The only downsides on them are that:

The memory card sometimes fills up and you need to manually delete a few videos to get it to start looping again (it runs in 3min loops, so sometimes fills the car without leaving enough space for it to work out how to delete the first vid again) happens maybe once every 6 months.

The other issue is that the G meters in them, even on the most sensitive setting, aren't sensitive enough in the front-rear G.
On a big bump, or railway crossing, it will lock the file thinking an accident has happened (up-down G force)
but in an accident, or hard braking (fore-aft Gs) it won't. The accident I know it doesnt work in, since when my car got smashed the camera didn't lock the file.

[hks_kansei]

My reasoning is that you don't really need a high definition video of the accident occurring unless it's a hit and run...even then, it should be visible given the close range. You just need to be able to see the idiot doing the wrong thing, and then get out and take a bunch of pictures with your phone.

yes and no.

Because the cameras are optically pretty rubbish you want to still record in a decent resolution to get any detail at all other than rough shapes.

The lenses are usually very wide angle, which is great for the field of view, but also means that objects in the video are quite tiny. Even on my 1080p model rego is pretty hard to read more than a few car lengths away.

On top of the angles, the lenses also lack autofocus, they work off hyperfocal, which basically means they are a smallish aperture and a moderate focus distance, so that most ranges from close to infinity are acceptably sharp and clear. The small aperture means that in anything but bright sunshine they bump the ISO up a lot to maintain proper exposure, which means video can get pretty grainy on overcast/night.

And finally, the lenses used are pretty cheap and nasty and they're hampered by the usually grotty windscreen (plus any reflections etc)



SO basically, they're optically crap, so you'll want the best resolution you can get to make up for it (within reason)

[Apu]

Mmm...makes sense. Your points in about reliability worry me more though...and unfortunately, high resolution = high price = higher (expected) quality and reliability.

[hks_kansei]

Regarding the reliability.

The Navig8r ones I have have both worked fine from day 1, and still work fine now.

The charger issue i'm pretty sure is the car's fault more than the camera.
The memory card thing is a minor inconvenience, but may be to do with me buying a smallish card (budget)

The G meter one, that's just a design fault. But you can lock the file manually by pressing a button, the G thing does work, but it needs a hell of a hit to set it off (like, airbags deployed kind of hit)
It's also worth saying that even if it doesnt lock, depending on the memory card size, it will need to be recording for a constant hours or so afterwards to write over that file (I think I get about an hours of video on my card)



I got mine for I think about $80 each?
I'm pretty sure they can be had a lot cheaper though, I onyl got them to use up an unwanted giftcard.

[Apu]

Thanks for that!

[Lokiel]

I'm now leaning towards the G1W-C "Full HD 1080P H.264 Capacitor Model - No Battery" - this uses capacitors rather than a battery so is more suited to Brisbane's hot summers (see http://www.bestdashboardcameras.com/g1w ... am-review/ - this site indicates that the Mini 0801, a precursor to Trackphoto's Mini 0805, is a better dash cam in this range).

"The G1W-C dashboard camera is another upgrade to the G1W model. A big thing upgraded in G1W-C is the use of capacitor rather than batteries as alternate means of power.

Usually, dash cams have batteries when it comes to being self-powered, this ensures that the dash cam saves the current recording and shuts down properly in an event of abrupt power failure. But using batteries has its own disadvantages when it comes to weather.

During summer days, the inside of your vehicle get really hot, if you park your vehicle in the sun, and there’s a good chance of dash cam’s battery exploding due to overheat. Furthermore, as time passes, the charge retaining capacity of a battery reduces and sooner or later it becomes useless.

On the other hand, capacitors are proven to resist heat and overheating in a much better way than batteries and they tend to have a much longer lifespan. Hence it’s always good to buy a dash cam that uses capacitor rather than batteries as alternate means of power."

The original G1W was highly regarded as a no-frills camera with a decent camera (see http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dash-cam/).

[Trackphotos]

I got my sister a G1W-C for her birthday back in March. She hasn't had any problems with it, seems to do the job. I chose to get her that one for the same reason, capacitor vs battery.

[joshuam]

I have a Navman MiVue 358 in my other car which does the job fine. I really want another one for the MX5, but I wouldn't risk any suction cap or really obvious units because I don't want a thief to slash the soft top trying to steal it.

[Apu]

I just looked up the Navman MiVueDrive - GPS and dash cam in one...sounds perfect!

[Mr Morlock]

There was an article in the Paper recently - probably the Age. The key thing is you need a quality product- a fuzzy or illegible image is not going to help. Also a road cam will not cover all angles- only the range of the camera and where it is pointed. I don't imagine a rear end crash gets covered. It might even be worth checking the Insurance co to see what they think i.e. do they have any policy or premium benefits.

[Mr Morlock]

sorry another PS- pet hate- cars with so much tinting that you would not know if it were a barbary ape or barbie driving the car.