Surveillance camera for outdoors

I have described a concept for security with surveillance. And that delays a break-in. A camera alone does not delay. And it does not really deter either.

What approach can you recommend to determine the correct position for cameras in advance? Originally, I also found the roof overhang the most aesthetic, but with 2 full stories it actually ends up filming the headwear. At least you would see that someone is on the property, just not who. I would find it difficult to choose the correct distance at the house wall, and it is obviously very conspicuous.

The manufacturers have tools to display their cameras and the viewing angles, etc., based on your building structure. Because there are about a wheelbarrow and a backpack full of variables.

It is not only the pixel count of the display that is decisive but also the form factor, housing, viewing angle, focal length, height, and so on and so forth. Of course, only cameras that are actually good offer such possibilities... but with that, you can cover everything comprehensively and don’t just have the entrance and garden in view.

Therefore, you cannot determine in advance where the cameras will be located. Because it may be that camera X on the roof overhang delivers a quite good result. Camera Y, on the other hand, not at all. For example, I have four different camera types outside with a total of 6 cameras so that everything is covered and I have a 360-degree view.

Of course, it also depends on what type of house you have and how high your roof overhang is.

The pedestrian path will be included, since my property extends to the street, so there should be no legal issues.

Are we talking about surveillance here? That is prohibited. I can only advise against it.

Cameras tend to attract rather than deter.

I can say from many years of experience that absolutely no burglar is deterred by cameras. At most, they are nice to have in order to provide something to the police afterwards or to catch the neighbor’s kid putting firecrackers in the mailbox. And even the police are only lucky if someone happens to recognize the visitor. With inexpensive cameras, everything is also gray at night, meaning due to IR-related black-and-white view, you cannot even say anything reliable about clothing (there are also cameras with color night vision).

What deters or prevents is significantly more difficult entry (i.e. mechanical burglary protection), light and/or noise. In that order. We have our cameras only "to watch" and because I’m into technology.

Cameras do make sense, but only if they are part of an overall concept.

Exactly!
Before that, an individual analysis should take place to determine what I want to achieve with it or what I can actually prevent and whether this particular risk really exists for me.
I wouldn’t demonize it in general; as I said, it’s more about this current security trend, supposedly to increase my vulnerable safety.
I specifically remember people who did not want to implement an effective measure, e.g. with a simple wooden beam, because it didn’t seem technical or modern enough to them, even though they were afraid. They then chose a cool solution, expensive and trendy but nonsense regarding the problem..... o_O

At €500 per camera, you’re no longer in the toy department.

I had understood that the original poster wanted to spend €500 in total, especially to solve the trash bin firecracker risk. Already with a serious hazard analysis, the camera topic would have been finished with this problem.

But the whole thing is integrated into an overall concept. I have it because I am tech-savvy and not because it “would be necessary.”

I can absolutely understand if someone enjoys technology or similar things. However, I have often experienced that especially in this area, fear is strongly used, and one has always heard or read some horror story for every situation somewhere, which then justifies any exaggerated measure.
My critical reflection is without exception directed against the indiscriminate use due to mostly unfounded fear of everything and everyone, which does not actually show itself in real life.
If this danger were actually real or probable, one wouldn’t set any financial limits, or is the life or health of my family only worth 500-5000 euros?
As writes, it often happens also out of curiosity but also to control things which are then justified with some dangers; humans like to control.
In South America, it was such that the children of the better society never were allowed to play outside the gated community; they were picked up by the bus behind the fence in the morning and delivered back behind the fence at school. Cameras everywhere, lists, observations while 60% of these children were overweight or visibly fat due to extreme sugar consumption. Nobody was afraid of that, and talking about topics like pedophilia or violence in the family/environment was not allowed there. That was impossible even though it was the most obvious.

But everyone saw criminals and terrible dangers everywhere and lived like in prison although there was basically nothing happening in terms of crime compared to Central Europe. The presence of thousands of cameras, high fences, fierce dogs in every garden, as well as the constantly shrill car theft alarms or those in department stores has obviously led people there to feel that everything and every second was dangerous, although the picture ultimately arose exactly through the excess of these crazy countermeasures. Sad!

What ultimately an intruder, crook etc. thinks and does or their motivation or approach is unfathomable and completely different. Anyone who believes they know what THE intruder does or how it will be probably fantasizes or has watched Derrick too often, how he always figured it out exactly in 45 minutes.