Cash-strapped parents warned against using cheap security cameras as baby monitors

Parents of babies have been warned not to use cheaper wireless security cameras over potentially more expensive baby monitors. Consumer champion Which one? said that although cheap and flexible, security cameras should not be used.

He tells parents, many of whom will face financial pressures in the cost-of-living crisis, that there are five main reasons they aren’t as adept at monitoring baby as properly designed monitors. One of them is the lack of built-in temperature sensors, which are essential to see that the baby’s sleeping area is neither too hot nor too cold.

Security cameras also tend to have a wider angle and zoom out, while baby monitors can be focused on the child. Security cameras also have alarms that can be triggered remotely, great for scaring off burglars, but not really necessary for a baby.

The last two reasons described by Which? include the absence of sensitive lights on the security cameras, which allow you to gradually increase the brightness to see if baby is sleeping. And, of course, security cameras aren’t capable of playing lullabies to help baby fall asleep.

Who? recommends parents select baby monitors that can be audio, video or smart, ranging in price from around £35 for sound-only to over £100 for high-end smart monitors.

Security cameras can cost around £50 or less, which ones? said, but lack the important features of baby monitors. For some recommended baby monitors, visit Which?

Comments are closed.