Parents of babies have been warned not to use cheaper wireless security cameras rather than potentially more pricey baby monitors. Consumer champion Which? has said while they are cheap and flexible, security cameras shouldn't be relied on.
It is telling parents, many of whom will be facing financial pressures in the cost of living crisis, that there are five key reasons why they are not as suitable to watching over baby as properly designed monitors. One of these is the lack of in-built temperature sensors, which are vital to see the baby's sleeping area is neither too hot or too cold.
Security cameras also tend to have a wider and zoomed out angle, whereas baby monitors can bee focused on the child. Security cameras also have alarms which can be sounded remotely, fine for scaring off burglars, but not really needed for a baby.
The final two reasons outlined by Which? include the lack of sensitive lights on security cameras, which enable you to gradually increase brightness to see if baby is asleep. And, of course, security cameras are not able to play lullabies to help baby to sleep.
Which? recommends parents select baby monitors which can be audio on, video or smart, ranging in price from around £35 for sound only to more than £100 for the top-of-the range smart monitors.
Security cameras can cost around £50 or less, Which? says, but lack the important features of baby monitors. For some recommended baby monitors, visit Which?
