Coax VS Cat5

[sicctv 0]

Hello,

 

I am sure this question has been asked many times, dont yell at me! I did search for it and couldnt find anything.

 

I was wondering what is better coax or cat5? I am sure it all depends on the job but can you guys give me some pros/cons about the two that a beginner in this field would not know? Also any other info about them would be great!

 

I mostly do small residential work and some business office work and usually no more than 4-16 cams yet.

 

Thanks alot!

[Soundy 1]

The biggest con, in my experience, is that using baluns with cheap 12VDC cameras and multi-channel power supplies, is the increased likelihood of ground-loop issues. Using separate 12V "wall wart" power adapters, or 24VAC or dual-voltage cameras, generally avoids the issue.

 

Cameras with high-power built-in IR may have problems with voltage loss on longer runs as well... although in many cases I think you'll find things are just fine.

 

Pros, well... Cat5 and RG59 tend to cost about the same, but with the Cat5 route, you don't need the separate power wire, which saves some money, as well as making the pulling easier (a bundle of like-sized cable will always be smoother than a mix of cable types.

 

And, if you ever want to upgrade a camera to an IP/megapixel camera, you just have to re-terminate and plug in the new camera.

[rory 0]

Coax is the standard for CCTV, so it is always going to be the best, although sometimes, especially larger jobs, cat5 can make things easier.

[Soundy 1]

Something being "the standard" does not automatically make it "the best", and certainly doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be "the best".

[rory 0]

Better quality, better everything, always will be, its for that type of signal, cat5 baluns etc are just work arounds or hacks. If you can save considerable money using cat5 then do so, otherwise stick with what is guaranteed.

[Campbell 0]

Better quality, better everything, always will be, its for that type of signal, cat5 baluns etc are just work arounds or hacks. If you can save considerable money using cat5 then do so, otherwise stick with what is proven.

 

I don't think that Cat5 is unproven as a viable alternative to coax.

[rory 0]

I don't think that Cat5 is unproven as a viable alternative to coax.

 

Right, edited to read Guarenteed instead. " title="Applause" />

[thewireguys 3]

There are "standards" and then there is "Rory's way"

[SEANHAWG 1]

I used to be die hard siamese, but am exploring cat5 as an option now. it makes for a little cleaner install and I have found the costs of solid copper cat5 to be significantly cheaper than rg59 siamese solid copper. Still testing it out but I like it so far. I'll be running experiments on various lengths of cat5 soon and will post my results.

[rory 0]

There are "standards" and then there is "Rory's way"

?? Well one can use CatTV cable too if they have it lying around and then its free, cant get any cheaper than that ... but most of us know better than that.

 

Look, with cat5 you have to change the signal, those baluns arent just a connector, the final image on the other end of the cable will depend on what the balun does, not what you see at the camera - why should i put the quality of my video on the other end of the cable in the hands of the balun manufacturers, if I dont have to? With coax you dont even need a connector. Im not saying dont use cat5, there are certainly cases where one can benefit greatly using cat5 over coax, just saying realize there ARE differences, kind of like what wifi is to hardwired networks.

[Soundy 1]

Better quality, better everything, always will be, its for that type of signal, cat5 baluns etc are just work arounds or hacks.

An interesting statement, given that in the professional audio world, balanced signal lines are by far the preferred method of interconnect, specifically for their noise rejection capabilities. About the only place you find unbalanced coax in audio is in guitar cables, some speaker lines (where the signal level is high enough to overcome almost any noise floor), and in cheap consumer equipment.

 

There's no logical reasons the same concepts of a balanced signal line shouldn't apply to video.

[rory 0]

This has already been discussed in hundreds of threads here so I will refer to one of those and call it a day.

Eg. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=23278

[dustmop 0]

While this is something of a "dead horse" topic, my input from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=25359 still stands.

 

250,000+ feet of UTP, ~800 cameras, some runs upwards of 2,000 feet, and no video quality issues here. Be aware that for longer runs, you will need an active transceiver on the receiving end to help with the signal quality. My experience on passive-only is that after about 300 feet or so, the image starts to darken, and beyond 500 quality really starts to suffer. Another advantage of UTP is using multi-pair cables (like 25- or 100-pair) to get your video back to the head end.

[fa chris 0]

At the end of the day, IP cameras using cat5 will destroy any analog camera using coax in my opinion.

 

For business customers, if you put in cat5 and use baluns with analog cameras, you have provided an upgrade path for your customer to switch to IP cameras in the future without a complete installation, but just replacing cameras and head end equipment. To me, that's worth it.

 

Otherwise, might as well use the cable spec'd for the camera which is going to be coax for an analog camera.

[rory 0]

At the end of the day, IP cameras using cat5 will destroy any analog camera using coax in my opinion.

Wow thats a strong opinion

[Birdman Adam 0]

Coax is old...

 

I love cat5! It is so much cheaper, as well as easier to pull/run, and easy to connect.

[fa chris 0]

IP cameras are:

easier to install - plug into a network, no encoders, no splitters or looping matrix's, etc.

easier to power - PoE

easier to control - no data cable for PTZs to deal with

more flexible - remote cameras? no problem. Also don't need a card plugged into a dvr, can order a server from anyone and plug it into the network, install your software, and done.

easier to expand - can run a cable back to any network room 300' away and attach it to your cctv vlan any time, and you're not limited to how many channels your dvr has as it's based on camera licenses with the head end software. You can also connect cameras directly to the customers network provided they have the bandwidth.

less space - you cut out a lot of head end equipment and power supplies.

 

and megapixel progressive scan IP cameras produce a far superior image to a 480 line (or 540) interlaced analog camera. if yours doesn't, you need a new line of cameras.

 

The new 180/360 degree megapixel cameras with multiple imagers basically have obsoleted PTZs for most applications.

 

Can't attest to the low light conditions, always use flir thermal cameras when it's an issue, and it's rarely an issue with businesses as there's usually plenty of outside lighting.

 

For residential though, analog cameras are more than adequate and more economical.

 

Again, that's all my "strong" opinion. I deal with larger projects typically so economies of scale kick in for me, probably not applicable in residential or many small business installs. I've done systems with 200+ IP cameras coming back to network switches connected by a fiber backbone, with the head end equipment only taking up a few racks and the security console only containing a few workstations and a lot of large monitors. Very simple, very clean installation.

 

On the flip side I've done systems with 200+ analog cameras with giant bundles of rj59, fiber (for the cameras to far away), along with 18 gauge power cables and 22 gauge ptz data cables running into 4 racks full of fiber modules, matrix bays, and termination panels along with 2 more racks of expensive proprietary dvr's. You can imagine the space and cable required for this... compare that to the IP solution with a single fiber bundle running into the head end.

[rory 0]

[Birdman Adam 0]

Yea, I partly agree with Rory. Not sure if its easier to install IP cams...

 

-Network length is short compared to analog

-Harder to crimp RJ45 connectors

-You pay a whole lot to power them (POE)

-COST of the cameras!!

-Recording software can be expensive, with dumb license fees

[Campbell 0]

The network length is shortish, but nothing that can't be overcome

 

I wouldn't call RJ45 harder to crimp than coax. Once you're practised, both are remarkably easy.

 

PoE is not that expensive these days. Sure its more than a 12VDC power supply but if you're using large amounts, then a PoE switch will do and that serves 2 purposes.

 

... Why am I bothering? This is CAT5 vs COAX not IP vs analog.

 

Ultimately, there are uses for both types but if I had my druthers, I'd rather be the guy who needed to carry a 1000ft box of Cat 5 than a 1000ft roll of RG59u

[fa chris 0]

5 years ago the cost of IP cameras was prohibitive, I don't think that's the case today. Same with PoE network switches, and on a lot of projects you can connect to the customers network so you're just specifying to the network group what you need... drops the cost significantly. Also when you get away from purpose built DVR's the cost savings makes up for the software difference.

 

Real estate is expensive, and analog cabling/head end equipment takes a lot of real estate.

 

I think Cat5 simply has a lot more capability than Coax. Data, power, video... all in one jacket. One connector at each end either going to a camera or a switch to accomplish everything.

 

Honestly for any system over 16 cameras I'd push for IP, and any system over 32 cameras I wouldn't go any other way.

[fa chris 0]

-Network length is short compared to analog

 

Realistically cat5e is good for 300', rg59u for 700'. Anything over that, and you're buying media converters and going on fiber.

 

Thing is, coax is home run, network switches can easily be distributed making my network runs shorter and using less cable in a lot of cases. Even if fiber is needed in your network, you can get switches with fiber ports built in so you eliminate the media converters and go just on fiber, not to mention you can have 10 cameras going to a single switch riding two strands of fiber back to your main switch at the head end. This becomes huge when you're talking about a single cctv system for multiple buildings. You really open up the design possibilities to cut down on overall cable lengths and create a fully distributed system over a very large area.

 

Again, all of the above really starts to add up as the systems get larger. If you're talking about a small office or something with 16 cameras then coax will probably be cheaper/easier.

[thewireguys 3]

IP is definitely easier and more flexible for systems over 16 channels. I can remotely program my systems from anywhere I have a internet connection including the cameras. HD/Megapixel sells itself and VMS software is definitely more expandable then 16 or 32 channel DVRs.

 

Also customers can do more with a dedicated security network then just pulling miles of coax. You can add IP access control, Wifi access points, PTP, PTMP, MESH Networks, IP I/O.... IP networks give more value to the end user then coax.

 

Oh and POE is awesome.

[rory 0]

Guys, please stay on topic, this is coax vs cat5 not coax vs IP!

There are hundreds of threads on that already.

Thanks

[Soundy 1]

-Network length is short compared to analog

 

Realistically cat5e is good for 300', rg59u for 700'. Anything over that, and you're buying media converters and going on fiber.

Let's clarify here, in context of the thread: ETHERNET is good for 300'. Cat5e can be good to thousands of meters, depending on what you're running over it. Analog video over Cat5e can far outreach RG59 even with just passive baluns; one or two active units can extend it beyond that at relatively minimal cost.

 

And as common as ethernet is, it's not the only transport you can run IP over - at a previous IT employer, most of our sites used token-ring, which could happily run hundreds of feet over Cat3, and worked far more efficiently than ethernet (most desktop apps ran from a network drive, and even over 4Mbit T-R, they loaded faster than over ethernet).

 

Again, all of the above really starts to add up as the systems get larger. If you're talking about a small office or something with 16 cameras then coax will probably be cheaper/easier.

You're talking analog vs. IP here, not coax vs. UTP. Even for a small setup, UTP is generally cheaper, mainly since the cable itself is cheaper, and you don't need to pull an extra power run.