Dahua WizMind Series NVR Powerful Hardware Held Back by Outdated Firmware & Poor GUI

[sunny0101786]

I’m currently using a Dahua WizMind Series NVR608, and honestly, the overall experience has been quite disappointing from a GUI and firmware perspective.
The user interface is so much kind of outdated, old fashioned, and many options related to video footage handling and camera settings are poorly designed and imprecise. Fine tuning cameras for proper optimisation feels almost useless because the available controls lack depth, accuracy, and clarity.
Of course, many camera settings can be managed through a computer browser, but the real question is why those same controls are not properly and fully implemented within the NVR GUI itself. An NVR should be a complete and efficient management platform, not something that forces users to rely on external browser access for basic or advanced configuration.
What’s more frustrating is that the firmware feels extremely outdated compared to the rapid advancements happening in the IP camera industry and among competitors. For a premium and expensive WizMind series, the hardware clearly has a lot of potential, but it is being held back badly by the NVR firmware.
There have been no meaningful firmware updates, no noticeable feature improvements, and no proper bug fixes. Kind of no further updates to this particular product line. This is hard to justify, especially when Dahua is a large, well-established company. One would expect better software support and ongoing development for their high-end products.
At the moment, it feels like Dahua has invested heavily in hardware but seriously neglected the software side, which ultimately limits the real world value of the WizMind series.

 

[sunny0101786]

Another major issue is that a user can easily mess up camera settings from the NVR interface that were previously calibrated through the PC browser. There are no proper warnings, confirmations, or change alerts when adjustments are made from the NVR side. It’s very easy to unintentionally overwrite important settings without even realising it, as there is often no clear prompt asking whether you want to save or discard changes.

 

[weigle2]

What firmware version on you currently on. I Have the NVR608-32 bought via Andy, refurbished and currently run V4.002.0000000.0, Build Date: 2021-07-27. I have zero issues with the NVR, and all changes are done on the cameras, not the NVR. Granted, I use Blue Iris for my main recording, only and viewing using the NVR for recording also. It's not in a location easily found should someone break in to the house. Very satisfied with what I am getting out of the NVR608.

 

[sunny0101786]

 

[wittaj]

Which other IP camera competitors have been improving their experience?

Certainly not Hikvision (their main competitor) and certainly not cameras with the same low light qualities member here seek.

Sure unifi has been making some progress, but from a performance standpoint, they still don't stand up to the low light performance.

Axis does well, but they are a lot more expensive.

Ring, Arlo, Nest and other cloud based cameras provide a better userface experience, but that comes at the cost of poor low light performance.

You have to remember that us low-light users are not the intended user of Dahua and Hik products. The power users are businesses that mainly have bright light and no need to adjust camera settings. They simply record video and a monitor for real time viewing. And the power users as you would call them would go to a 3rd party VMS system because they understand Dahua is in the hardware business, not software business.

It is well documented around the forum why Dahua and Hikvision haven't "modernized" their GUI.

It comes down to IE was the most popular browser when these cameras started to be made, so they centered the firmware around one particular browser and they got lazy and never updated the internals of the program to play nice with other browsers as more became available and IE started to fade.

Back when the firmware was written, it was probably a pain to get it to play nice with every different browser, so they went with the most popular one.

They haven't had a need to address this because their intended market (remember it isn't us) is mainly businesses where they have enough light they can stay in default settings so they don't have a need to login to the camera via browser. It is us homeowners that push these to the limits and actually change settings.

As long as their intended market simply uses the NVR as a recording device and to display it on a monitor, they have no need to change what works for their intended market.

Further, Steve1225, who is an installer and works closely with Dahua, said it best here in this post:

 

[sunny0101786]

Which other IP camera competitors have been improving their experience?

Certainly not Hikvision (their main competitor) and certainly not cameras with the same low light qualities member here seek.

Sure unifi has been making some progress, but from a performance standpoint, they still don't stand up to the low light performance.

Axis does well, but they are a lot more expensive.

Ring, Arlo, Nest and other cloud based cameras provide a better userface experience, but that comes at the cost of poor low light performance.

You have to remember that us low-light users are not the intended user of Dahua and Hik products. The power users are businesses that mainly have bright light and no need to adjust camera settings. They simply record video and a monitor for real time viewing. And the power users as you would call them would go to a 3rd party VMS system because they understand Dahua is in the hardware business, not software business.

It is well documented around the forum why Dahua and Hikvision haven't "modernized" their GUI.

It comes down to IE was the most popular browser when these cameras started to be made, so they centered the firmware around one particular browser and they got lazy and never updated the internals of the program to play nice with other browsers as more became available and IE started to fade.

Back when the firmware was written, it was probably a pain to get it to play nice with every different browser, so they went with the most popular one.

They haven't had a need to address this because their intended market (remember it isn't us) is mainly businesses where they have enough light they can stay in default settings so they don't have a need to login to the camera via browser. It is us homeowners that push these to the limits and actually change settings.

As long as their intended market simply uses the NVR as a recording device and to display it on a monitor, they have no need to change what works for their intended market.

Further, Steve1225, who is an installer and works closely with Dahua, said it best here in this post:

I understand the perspective you’re coming from, but I completely disagree with it.

What I pointed out in my post is not rocket science for programmers or software engineers. Implementing proper GUI controls, confirmation warnings, and consistent camera-setting behaviour between browser and NVR interfaces is basic software design, especially for a company of Dahua’s size and resources. Large businesses do not struggle to hire capable developers globally if they truly prioritise it.

Saying “Dahua is a hardware company, not a software company” doesn’t really justify the situation. An NVR is not just hardware its value comes from the combination of hardware and software. Without strong, well designed software, even powerful hardware loses a significant part of its value. A non intuitive and risky GUI makes premium hardware feel unnecessarily frustrating to use.

I also don’t fully agree that their intended users “don’t need” better software. Even business environments benefit from safer workflows, better UI consistency, and clear change warnings. Allowing users to accidentally overwrite carefully calibrated camera settings without any save/discard confirmation is a design flaw, not a niche homeowner complaint. Yes, historical reasons like Internet Explorer dominance explain why the firmware started this way but they do not justify why it remains this way today. The IP camera industry has evolved rapidly, and competitors even if imperfect are investing in usability, modern interfaces, and safer configuration workflows.

This WizMind series hardware has enormous potential. My criticism comes from the fact that it deserves better firmware support, not from unrealistic expectations. No disrespect to your view at all, but I strongly believe Dahua is underutilising its premium hardware by neglecting the software side and that’s a missed opportunity, not an inevitability.

 

[sunny0101786]

If companies like Dahua do not take user feedback seriously and reflect it in future firmware development, then honestly, that is a real shame especially for a brand positioned in the premium segment.
Another issue is when highly knowledgeable users (and I include you here, respectfully) begin justifying Dahua’s inability to fix or improve clear software shortcomings. Defending or normalising these weaknesses instead of calling them out does not help fellow Dahua users like me, and it doesn’t help Dahua either. Constructive criticism is far more valuable than covering up limitations.
As users, especially those who understand the technology well, our role is to push for better standards when we know that more powerful, safer, and more user friendly software already exists in the industry. This includes demanding better GUI design, clearer warnings, consistent behaviour between browser and NVR, and overall improvements to the user experience. You may have a better way to articulate these issues or propose solutions, and that’s exactly where experienced members of this forum can add real value by feeding ideas back to Dahua engineers, keeping pressure on them, and encouraging continuous improvement.
Many knowledgeable users here have the insight and influence to drive this conversation forward, and I believe we should be using that strength to help make the software better not accept its current limitations as unchangeable.

 

[bigredfish]

I’m currently using a Dahua WizMind Series NVR608, and honestly, the overall experience has been quite disappointing from a GUI and firmware perspective.
The user interface is so much kind of outdated, old fashioned, and many options related to video footage handling and camera settings are poorly designed and imprecise. Fine tuning cameras for proper optimisation feels almost useless because the available controls lack depth, accuracy, and clarity.
Of course, many camera settings can be managed through a computer browser, but the real question is why those same controls are not properly and fully implemented within the NVR GUI itself. An NVR should be a complete and efficient management platform, not something that forces users to rely on external browser access for basic or advanced configuration.
What’s more frustrating is that the firmware feels extremely outdated compared to the rapid advancements happening in the IP camera industry and among competitors. For a premium and expensive WizMind series, the hardware clearly has a lot of potential, but it is being held back badly by the NVR firmware.
There have been no meaningful firmware updates, no noticeable feature improvements, and no proper bug fixes. Kind of no further updates to this particular product line. This is hard to justify, especially when Dahua is a large, well-established company. One would expect better software support and ongoing development for their high-end products.
At the moment, it feels like Dahua has invested heavily in hardware but seriously neglected the software side, which ultimately limits the real world value of the WizMind series.

To your point, you're not even talking about image quality or performance. You seem to be focused on "ease of use" and "look and feel" for lack of better terms.

The user interface is so much kind of outdated, old fashioned, and many options related to video footage handling and camera settings are poorly designed and imprecise. Fine tuning cameras for proper optimisation feels almost useless because the available controls lack depth, accuracy, and clarity.
Of course, many camera settings can be managed through a computer browser, but the real question is why those same controls are not properly and fully implemented within the NVR GUI itself.

NO NVR can manage every single image setting on hundreds of various camera models over many product years.
New camera models come out regularly with new features. Many cameras have 100 or more various controls.
How exactly do you propose those be put into a usable interface on an NVR?

You have unrealistic expectations.

The NVR is primarily a box to record video. It does it relatively efficiently and reliably. Mine has been doing so with dozens of different camera models with various new features for 8 years now.
Detailed image and AI settings, many of which you may not even know exist, must by common sense be set and dialed in on the camera itself.

We see this viewpoint more frequently, people want a simple, easy UI with few controls. They want magic AI to figure it all out so they don't have to put in the effort at tuning cameras to the scene and purpose. It should just have a kewl hip UI and somehow just adapt all of those pesky settings perfectly to each camera model and scene. Magic.

Don't confuse the primary purpose of an NVR and a camera.

 

[sunny0101786]

To your point, you're not even talking about image quality or performance. You seem to be focused on "ease of use" and "look and feel" for lack of better terms.

The user interface is so much kind of outdated, old fashioned, and many options related to video footage handling and camera settings are poorly designed and imprecise. Fine tuning cameras for proper optimisation feels almost useless because the available controls lack depth, accuracy, and clarity.
Of course, many camera settings can be managed through a computer browser, but the real question is why those same controls are not properly and fully implemented within the NVR GUI itself.

NO NVR can manage every single image setting on hundreds of various camera models over many product years.
New camera models come out regularly with new features. Many cameras have 100 or more various controls.
How exactly do you propose those be put into a usable interface on an NVR?

You have unrealistic expectations.

The NVR is primarily a box to record video. It does it relatively efficiently and reliably. Mine has been doing so with dozens of different camera models with various new features for 8 years now.
Detailed image and AI settings, many of which you may not even know exist, must by common sense be set and dialed in on the camera itself.

We see this viewpoint more frequently, people want a simple, easy UI with few controls. They want magic AI to figure it all out so they don't have to put in the effort at tuning cameras to the scene and purpose. It should just have a kewl hip UI and somehow just adapt all of those pesky settings perfectly to each camera model and scene. Magic.

Don't confuse the primary purpose of an NVR and a camera.

I think you may want to re-read my posts, because you’re missing the point of what I’m actually saying.
I’m not asking for “magic AI,” simplified controls, or for an NVR to expose every single image parameter across hundreds of camera models. I fully understand that detailed image tuning and advanced AI configuration must live at the camera level that’s not being disputed. My concern is about basic usability, consistency, and safety in the NVR interface. When the NVR already exposes certain camera controls, those controls should be accurate, clearly defined, and safe to use. Right now, they are not. The GUI allows users to unintentionally overwrite carefully calibrated camera settings without any warning, confirmation, or change visibility. That is not an “advanced tuning” issue it’s a fundamental UX and software design problem. I’m also not confusing the role of an NVR. Yes, its primary function is recording and playback and it does that well. But once Dahua chooses to expose camera-level controls inside the NVR, it also takes responsibility to implement them properly, not halfway. This isn’t about “look and feel” or wanting a trendy UI. It’s about clarity, precision, consistency between browser and NVR and basic protections against accidental misconfiguration. These expectations are not unrealistic, especially for a premium WizMind product line from a company of Dahua’s scale.
So again, this is not a request to redefine what an NVR is, it’s a request to do better with what’s already there.

 

[bigredfish]

When the NVR already exposes certain camera controls, those controls should be accurate, clearly defined, and safe to use. Right now, they are not. The GUI allows users to unintentionally overwrite carefully calibrated camera settings without any warning, confirmation, or change visibility

If you change a setting that is intended to make a change on the camera image, what exactly do you expect?

Can you show or describe a specific example that changes a camera image that isnt obvious that it is doing so?

 

[bigredfish]

I’ll certainly agree there should be a big honkin sign that flashes that says “Don’t make camera image settings on your NVR”

 

[sunny0101786]

When the NVR already exposes certain camera controls, those controls should be accurate, clearly defined, and safe to use. Right now, they are not. The GUI allows users to unintentionally overwrite carefully calibrated camera settings without any warning, confirmation, or change visibility

If you change a setting that is intended to make a change on the camera image, what exactly do you expect?

Can you show or describe a specific example that changes a camera image that isnt obvious that it is doing so?

When I first bought my NVR and connected my cameras, I initially configured and fine tuned all camera settings through the browser. After that, I was simply browsing through the NVR menus and camera-related options to familiarise myself with the system. I was not intentionally changing any image settings. However, shortly after doing this, I noticed that the camera image output quality had changed, and I couldn’t understand why. I had to go back into the camera via the browser and redo the calibration. A few days later, while again reviewing the NVR options something most users do when they have new equipment, the same thing happened again. Camera settings were altered from the NVR side without any clear warning, confirmation prompt, or indication that changes were being applied. There were no messages saying “you have changed X or Y, do you want to save or cancel?”yet changes were still pushed to the camera. That’s the core problem. It’s not about expecting changes when you deliberately adjust settings; it’s about settings being modified when the user believes they are only viewing or navigating menus. Since then I never touched those options again.

 

[wittaj]

Many people come here claiming they have an IT background and others making statements like it is "not rocket science for programmers or software engineers. Implementing proper GUI controls, confirmation warnings, and consistent camera-setting behaviour between browser and NVR interfaces is basic software design, especially for a company of Dahua’s size and resources."

And while that may be true, programmers don't sit in the board rooms making decisions. Maybe it isn't rocket science, but almost EVERY company makes decisions as it relates to software that most of us don't understand.

Your statement "Another issue is when highly knowledgeable users (and I include you here, respectfully) begin justifying Dahua’s inability to fix or improve clear software shortcomings. Defending or normalising these weaknesses instead of calling them out does not help fellow Dahua users like me, and it doesn’t help Dahua either. Constructive criticism is far more valuable than covering up limitations." is a classic example response demonstrating the lack of business decisions that drive these directions.

I am not stating this to "justify Dahua's inability", but rather to educate people as to the way the business world works. It is simply to put another perspective and provide additional information that may change someone's understanding of the situation. We don't have to like it, but if we understand the why, then maybe we don't get to wrapped up around armchair quarterbacking with limited information.

You stated "Large businesses do not struggle to hire capable developers globally if they truly prioritise it.", so you must have this basic understanding then that businesses can decide to not prioritize it.

And many chose to do just that.

You mentioned "Yes, historical reasons like Internet Explorer dominance explain why the firmware started this way but they do not justify why it remains this way today." But yes it certainly does...

Even though Microsoft has sunset Explorer, it is still available in Windows 11 (hidden). Many older programs rely on the old Trident (HTML-) Engine from IE, even stuff as basic as the old Control Panel. Old browsers are old, so unlike modern browsers where the WebView can be its own component, it's either all or nothing. And since the engine is still required not to break Windows functionality and apps from before 2015, it's still included (but mostly hidden). The whole file manager system is still based on IE. That's also why Device Manager and Control Panel are still there too. Similar to Dahua and Hikvision, Microsoft changed the UI and not the core, and added new features to upgrade its OS. A lot of legacy stuff are hidden.

Microsoft is a large software developer and certainly hires the most competent capable developers globally, and everyone complains how much Windows sucks... And all they do is the same practice that Dahua and Hik has done - build upon already old software instead of starting new.

Boeing is large company and certainly hires the most competent capable developers globally, yet their popular Boeing 747 still receives software updates via floppy disks.

Do a search and you will find every major company is using dated operating systems and this, that or the other. It is easy to sit on your couch and say "just write new code". It is a lot harder to justify for a company with thousands of devices in operation around the world.


You mentioned "experienced members of this forum can add real value by feeding ideas back to Dahua engineers, keeping pressure on them, and encouraging continuous improvement." You don't think we do that? We do. Many of us have interacted directly with Dahua (which they don't have to because they don't sell to us) and it has resulted in improvements to the firmware over the years. Look at all the interaction occurring in the PRO series thread right now.

But that is low level change. You wanna see change you are talking about, get enough shares of the company, get on the Board, or start your own company.

That is where the start-ups and newer companies have an advantage - Ring and Arlo didn't have a baseline firmware to work with and built it from scratch. Starting 20 years later and you will have a more modern GUI than the old-timers.


Sometimes we need to manage expectations or make compromises.

As are most things we buy, nothing is perfect. Not even a Ferrari (or your elite vehicle of choice).

So in this arena, we either deal with better night performing cameras on outdated browsers and poor user experience or go with crap consumer grade cameras that use fancy and easy to use apps (but way more vulnerabilities) but horrible night motion video.

If you don't want to deal with outdated browsers, then go with one of the consumer brands - Ring, Arlo, Reolink, Nest, Blink, etc. as those cameras all function from a nice 2025 looking app.

Simply download their app and scan the camera QR code and you are up and running, with a better app experience also.

But their using a modern app comes at a cost of nighttime performance and ability to customize stuff, but obviously many do not seem to care about that as those systems are popular and those consumer grade systems are a perfect fit for those that want simplicity and not having to learn how to use an NVR.

We are just fortunate to be able to get our hands on the better stuff. And a forum like this to help us when stuck.

Different end user, different expectations.

 

[bigredfish]

When I first bought my NVR and connected my cameras, I initially configured and fine tuned all camera settings through the browser. After that, I was simply browsing through the NVR menus and camera-related options to familiarise myself with the system. I was not intentionally changing any image settings. However, shortly after doing this, I noticed that the camera image output quality had changed, and I couldn’t understand why. I had to go back into the camera via the browser and redo the calibration. A few days later, while again reviewing the NVR options something most users do when they have new equipment, the same thing happened again. Camera settings were altered from the NVR side without any clear warning, confirmation prompt, or indication that changes were being applied. There were no messages saying “you have changed X or Y, do you want to save or cancel?”yet changes were still pushed to the camera. That’s the core problem. It’s not about expecting changes when you deliberately adjust settings; it’s about settings being modified when the user believes they are only viewing or navigating menus. Since then I never touched those options again.

Mmmmkay.

I haven’t experienced that

 

[wittaj]

When I first bought my NVR and connected my cameras, I initially configured and fine tuned all camera settings through the browser. After that, I was simply browsing through the NVR menus and camera-related options to familiarise myself with the system. I was not intentionally changing any image settings. However, shortly after doing this, I noticed that the camera image output quality had changed, and I couldn’t understand why. I had to go back into the camera via the browser and redo the calibration. A few days later, while again reviewing the NVR options something most users do when they have new equipment, the same thing happened again. Camera settings were altered from the NVR side without any clear warning, confirmation prompt, or indication that changes were being applied. There were no messages saying “you have changed X or Y, do you want to save or cancel?”yet changes were still pushed to the camera. That’s the core problem. It’s not about expecting changes when you deliberately adjust settings; it’s about settings being modified when the user believes they are only viewing or navigating menus. Since then I never touched those options again.

Part of your frustration is you are not Dahua's intended market. Did you purchase it from an authorized Dahua dealer and if so, who? Now call up Dahua and ask them a question and the first question they will ask you is for the serial number and then they will tell you if it is authorized by them or if you bought it from a third party.

I know if can be different in other parts of the world, but in the USA, you could only get official authorized Dahau equipment that was purchased and mostly likely installed by one of their certified reps.

At least here in the US, they haven't had a need to address this whole issue with IE and homeowner complaints of difficult to use NVRs because their intended market here is mainly businesses where they have enough light they can stay in default settings, so they don't have a need to login to the camera via browser and don't see all the issues we see. I would assume that is the same in other countries as well.

It is us homeowners that push these to the limits and actually change settings. We are fringe users and didn't buy our cameras from them directly (because we can't).

A large component of their business are with companies that simply use the NVR as a recording device and to live view display on a monitor.

My neighbor said his company installations of Dahua cams have always been well-lit businesses and default settings were good enough. All they cared about was live viewing by an employee/attendant of the business and the ability to play a video back when needed. He said they would get around a dozen calls per year from a homeowner wanting a quote and once they gave them a quote, they never heard from them again LOL. He has been with the company over 15 years and has never done an install in a residential home.

We have countless examples where something happens and an employee of the company simply uses their phone to take a video of the NVR monitor of an event LOL. They don't care to learn or take the time to figure out how to download a video, so they don't see all the issues we do.

If I were Dahua or Hikvision, why would I go to the expense of re-writing the code to more modern standards when the majority of my business is selling these devices to people that simply keep them on default and use it as live viewing and the occasional replay of an incident?

Now with the whole NDAA issue, that may change their mindset and mentality and I suspect they will have to eventually rewrite the code to modern standards with a nice easy to use app and what not, but all we have seen today are gimmicky consumer grade camera models with no real effort on the behind the scenes operation of the device. Just look at the PRO model thread for proof of this statement! It is like they are trying to break into the consumer market, but are going about it half @$$ed and a Ring or arlo will beat them all night long on simplicity of use.

Again, at least in the US, the mindset is if I buy a product and cannot get customer service from the manufacturer, then I am a fringe buyer that is not part of their core business. And I am fine with that for better quality at prices cheaper than consumer stuff and look to forums like this if I need help.

 

[sunny0101786]

Many people come here claiming they have an IT background and others making statements like it is "not rocket science for programmers or software engineers. Implementing proper GUI controls, confirmation warnings, and consistent camera-setting behaviour between browser and NVR interfaces is basic software design, especially for a company of Dahua’s size and resources."

And while that may be true, programmers don't sit in the board rooms making decisions. Maybe it isn't rocket science, but almost EVERY company makes decisions as it relates to software that most of us don't understand.

Your statement "Another issue is when highly knowledgeable users (and I include you here, respectfully) begin justifying Dahua’s inability to fix or improve clear software shortcomings. Defending or normalising these weaknesses instead of calling them out does not help fellow Dahua users like me, and it doesn’t help Dahua either. Constructive criticism is far more valuable than covering up limitations." is a classic example response demonstrating the lack of business decisions that drive these directions.

I am not stating this to "justify Dahua's inability", but rather to educate people as to the way the business world works. It is simply to put another perspective and provide additional information that may change someone's understanding of the situation. We don't have to like it, but if we understand the why, then maybe we don't get to wrapped up around armchair quarterbacking with limited information.

You stated "Large businesses do not struggle to hire capable developers globally if they truly prioritise it.", so you must have this basic understanding then that businesses can decide to not prioritize it.

And many chose to do just that.

You mentioned "Yes, historical reasons like Internet Explorer dominance explain why the firmware started this way but they do not justify why it remains this way today." But yes it certainly does...

Even though Microsoft has sunset Explorer, it is still available in Windows 11 (hidden). Many older programs rely on the old Trident (HTML-) Engine from IE, even stuff as basic as the old Control Panel. Old browsers are old, so unlike modern browsers where the WebView can be its own component, it's either all or nothing. And since the engine is still required not to break Windows functionality and apps from before 2015, it's still included (but mostly hidden). The whole file manager system is still based on IE. That's also why Device Manager and Control Panel are still there too. Similar to Dahua and Hikvision, Microsoft changed the UI and not the core, and added new features to upgrade its OS. A lot of legacy stuff are hidden.

Microsoft is a large software developer and certainly hires the most competent capable developers globally, and everyone complains how much Windows sucks... And all they do is the same practice that Dahua and Hik has done - build upon already old software instead of starting new.

Boeing is large company and certainly hires the most competent capable developers globally, yet their popular Boeing 747 still receives software updates via floppy disks.

Do a search and you will find every major company is using dated operating systems and this, that or the other. It is easy to sit on your couch and say "just write new code". It is a lot harder to justify for a company with thousands of devices in operation around the world.


You mentioned "experienced members of this forum can add real value by feeding ideas back to Dahua engineers, keeping pressure on them, and encouraging continuous improvement." You don't think we do that? We do. Many of us have interacted directly with Dahua (which they don't have to because they don't sell to us) and it has resulted in improvements to the firmware over the years. Look at all the interaction occurring in the PRO series thread right now.

But that is low level change. You wanna see change you are talking about, get enough shares of the company, get on the Board, or start your own company.

That is where the start-ups and newer companies have an advantage - Ring and Arlo didn't have a baseline firmware to work with and built it from scratch. Starting 20 years later and you will have a more modern GUI than the old-timers.


Sometimes we need to manage expectations or make compromises.

As are most things we buy, nothing is perfect. Not even a Ferrari (or your elite vehicle of choice).

So in this arena, we either deal with better night performing cameras on outdated browsers and poor user experience or go with crap consumer grade cameras that use fancy and easy to use apps (but way more vulnerabilities) but horrible night motion video.

If you don't want to deal with outdated browsers, then go with one of the consumer brands - Ring, Arlo, Reolink, Nest, Blink, etc. as those cameras all function from a nice 2025 looking app.

Simply download their app and scan the camera QR code and you are up and running, with a better app experience also.

But their using a modern app comes at a cost of nighttime performance and ability to customize stuff, but obviously many do not seem to care about that as those systems are popular and those consumer grade systems are a perfect fit for those that want simplicity and not having to learn how to use an NVR.

We are just fortunate to be able to get our hands on the better stuff. And a forum like this to help us when stuck.

Different end user, different expectations.

I respect your opinion, but I feel like my point of view is being misunderstood here. I’m not looking to move to consumer grade brands, nor am I asking for simplicity at the cost of performance. Suggesting that I should sell expensive, premium hardware and switch to consumer systems because of software criticism doesn’t really address the issue I raised. This discussion isn’t about choosing Ring, Arlo, or similar products. It’s about holding a premium, professional grade brand accountable for improving the software that supports its own high end hardware. When users invest significant money in a product, it’s reasonable to expect ongoing firmware improvements, safer configuration workflows, and a more refined user experience without sacrificing performance.
I’m simply sharing my real world experience and offering constructive criticism. That shouldn’t be interpreted as an attack on Dahua or a suggestion that the hardware is bad. In fact, my criticism exists because the hardware is good and has much more potential.
We’re here to exchange experiences and viewpoints, not to defend brands. None of us are Dahua, and constructive feedback from users is how products actually improve. I think it’s healthy for discussions like this forum to allow that space rather than redirecting criticism toward “just buy something else.”

 

[wittaj]

Mmmmkay.

I haven’t experienced that

I have noticed that on my neighbors NVR when I set up his new one.

I think it has something to do with the whole reason why we tell people to set up everything in the Camera GUI and not the NVR and only set up recording from within the NVR.

Do you ever pull up the camera settings in the NVR? I think that is when the problem occurs. The NVR pulls it up for viewing and something happens behind the scenes (oh there is a discrepancy between what the NVR and the camera says).

It only happened on the cameras I looked at the camera settings at on the NVR.

It also seems to happen if there was a change on the camera and the NVR hadn't been rebooted to pull that setting into the NVR for when someone goes to look at the settings from within the NVR.

Kind of hard to explain, but what I think happens is when you set up and NVR, the NVR simply accepts the camera feed but doesn't update actual cameras settings to the NVR until a reboot, so if someone then goes into the NVR and opens up a camera settings page, even without changing anything, the NVR then sends it back to the camera.

I have kind of made it my best practice to reboot the NVR before I log into the NVR.

 

[wittaj]

I respect your opinion, but I feel like my point of view is being misunderstood here. I’m not looking to move to consumer grade brands, nor am I asking for simplicity at the cost of performance. Suggesting that I should sell expensive, premium hardware and switch to consumer systems because of software criticism doesn’t really address the issue I raised. This discussion isn’t about choosing Ring, Arlo, or similar products. It’s about holding a premium, professional grade brand accountable for improving the software that supports its own high end hardware. When users invest significant money in a product, it’s reasonable to expect ongoing firmware improvements, safer configuration workflows, and a more refined user experience without sacrificing performance.
I’m simply sharing my real world experience and offering constructive criticism. That shouldn’t be interpreted as an attack on Dahua or a suggestion that the hardware is bad. In fact, my criticism exists because the hardware is good and has much more potential.
We’re here to exchange experiences and viewpoints, not to defend brands. None of us are Dahua, and constructive feedback from users is how products actually improve. I think it’s healthy for discussions like this forum to allow that space rather than redirecting criticism toward “just buy something else.”

You are misunderstanding what I am saying.

Criticism is good, but understanding the how and why Dahua got to this point can help provide a sound argument for change instead of just coming off as one-sided, personal experience. I learn things here every day and have changed my opinion on gear after learning more of the story.

I will ask again - in the eyes of Dahua are you a "user" in that your stuff is from authorized Dahua and the serial number will provide you with support from them? I suspect it isn't, so they don't care about your concerns. Sad and hard reality.

I am stating the facts of the industry as it stands today. Which is basically no real competition so no need to use modern sensors or update firmware to modern standards. When a new player comes to town that makes an impact to the bottom line, they we will see change.

I did not tell you to sell your stuff and switch to consumer.

I said you have to manage your expectations based on what is available today. Either better lowlight performance at this price point, or better software experiences with lesser quality camera.

If you want expensive and premium, go to the Axis line of stuff. You will find better cameras and better user interfaces. For most of us, we will deal with the headaches of the Dahua shortcomings LOL. Some believe unifi will within 2 years have better cameras than Dahua. Many have already switched to that NVR for the better user experience. I would only switch if their camera prices are comparable to Dahua.


Regardless of whether you believe or accept the reason or not, we both agree on the fact is it is old obsolete code and they could do better. They just haven't had the reason to. There is basically no competition for them.

I was simply pointing out that at the end of the day there are not that many manufacturers out there and anything else may be more of the same under a different label. Dahua and Hikvision probably make more than the other manufacturers combined.

Many years ago IPVM made a little graphic showing some of the companies that sell Dahua or Hikvision OEM under their own label. This is just a partial sampling as the number of companies for each is in the hundreds, if not thousands.

At which point, most will live with the issues....

 

[Underhill]

Op you may be expecting too much. As a dahua partner I got 5 years of little questions asked warranty on hardware. To date I’ve sold, serviced/warrantied $5.6 million in their products and have figured out how to do/fix things their engineers couldn’t help with. I’ve never gotten so much as a free camera or even any training from them. If they care that much about me, the sad truth is they give less than a rats ass about an end user.

That being said, a lot of the people here know way more than me about optics and configuration of cams for low light. As mentioned above people like me are just doing turn key systems for commercial with extremely well lit areas.

 

[[email protected]]

Just to chuck my view:
I tend to agree with sunny. The NVR's teasing interface to adjust (wreck, cause havoc) each IP camera. Is designed for the user that has everything on the lovely "auto settings", as it may work! Never tried myself.

But as said before, by other forum members, it's target users are hopefully more professional. Either remove the NVR's adjustments to the connected IP cameras or allow those adjustments to sync correctly and not to be detrimental!