Looks to be an unsupported configuration at the moment...

https://www.reddit.com/r/reolinkcam/comments/1gemayq/doorbell_chime_v2_and_home_hub_incompatibility/

I can tell you that the wired WiFi doorbell does with with both (that's what I have). I can only assume that's it's a battery capacity issue... the more lines of code in the firmware means more power for processing. Having to send two alert signals to two different devices also means more power.

@joseph_1979 that would explain then (from previous conversation) that the client and cameras need to to be on the same subnet if UID is turned off or if there is no Internet access. It also explains why in my sandbox, the cameras are accessible from different VLANs when UID is turned on. With that, I should be able to conclude that turning UID off will necessitate enabling VLAN broadcast traffic. I'll test it to confirm, but I believe based on your information, that will be the case. Thanks!

Sounds like you are not using a Reolink Home Hub Pro. This issue goes away with the HHP as the HHP's WiFi is a private network and the HHP does it's own NAT for access to it. The HHP also has dual Ethernet ports... a LAN port which is on the same private network as the WiFi and a WAN port for connectivity to YOUR network. With this, the LAN port can be connected to it's own switch or to a Layer-2 switch with defined VLANS. With this setup, no additional routing is necessary and you can block access to the Internet to require a VPN connection to your network for remote access.

When not using a HHP, camera isolation does work as I have sandboxed it for client's evaluation (this is actually how I found out about Reolink). I used their Layer-3 switch to handle the VLAN routing, not their firewall. The two test cameras which are wired in on their own VLAN can be access from the mobile client either via their company WiFi or remotely.

So this brings up something I have not tested... turning of UID to prevent remote access without having to VPN in. Because the cameras are on on a different subnet than the mobile client, I do not know if turning off UID will prevent the client from finding the cameras. I don't believe it should as the client should have the IP addresses of the cameras. If it does not, I would think the enabling broadcast forwarding to the subnet would fix that.

Anyhow, FWIW, camera isolation does work and there are a couple different approaches.

@user_892959385403573_892959385403573 On the PC client when it opens to multi-view, it will only display the feed if the camera preview is set to Low or Mid (camera dependent). For a camera that does not display, resetting the preview to either Low or Mid will resolve the issue. It did for me.

Also, switch to the max grid size to ensure all your camera are next to each other. At some point, I somehow got one of my six camera down on channel 14 and thought the PC client lost it it until I switched to max grid size. If that happens, you can drag it back to where it belongs,

@gogators93_419026618958065 You can connect Reolink cameras to the DVR via the LAN port, so yes, as long as you have a compatible WiFi camera, the LAN side (your mesh network) wiill register whatever compatible cameras are connected to it. I don't have any battery cameras so I can not help you with which ones have the best battery time. Not sure if it would void your warranty, but you might want to consider a model with removable batteries so you can swap the batteries in lieu of charging the camera directly.

There a few different camera deployment methods depending on the area of observation and what your needs are. The 4-corner method is very common but assumes a structure with 4 relatively flat sides (you can Google it). That method doesn't work well for my home so I went with a different approach (I don't recall the name of it) but I am setup like this...

I have a Duo 2 over looking the front of my home. I have it placed about 10 feet up in the middle and it gets me full overwatch of the front yard. As others have said, at the reaching edges of the FOV you will loose clarity as you zoom in however that is not my objective with this. I am not interested in grabbing license plate numbers or facial details from here. I simply want a complete picture of the home's frontage. For detail, I support this with a doorbell cam and an RLC-1240A on my porch pillar.

Rear of the home is setup similar. Duo 2 Floodlight high up on the eve of the 2nd floor for overwatch and an RLC-843A on the eve of my patio door. I have IR disabled on both and installed a 90-degree 20-watt IR illuminator that turns by backyard in to daylight without IR glare/reflection.

My garage door faces out from one of the sides so an RLC-1240A about 12-feet directly over the driveway gives me overwatch on that side. The 1240 FOV is just wide enough to slightly overlap the Duo 2's.

The 4th side I have a neighbor so to avoid capturing his property, I have an RLC-843A at one corner, twisted slightly to capture in a skewed corridor orientation.

I do have some blind spots which I plan to fill over time as I assess the best camera options for those areas. As for now, I have managed to accomplish my initial surveillance objectives:

1) 4-side overwatch
2) Detail at points of entry

Here is what I have learned about the cameras I use...

1) The doorbell fisheye is horrible, but it captures what I need.
2) Since the Duo uses image stitching, ambient lighting fluctuations and IR reflection (front yard) can cause the two sides to expose differently.
3) The RLC-843A has a narrower FOV but exceptional low-light performance (I have no need for the IR lights in a suburb setting).
4) The RLC-1240A has an ideal FOV (opinion) but needs IR assistance.
5) The internal small flood lights are much brighter in the 843 vs the 1240 (due to zoom on the 843) so you have to make a compromise based on your needs--this was the toughest for me.
6) When the small floods lights turn on, you loose depth of field. Only the flooded area will be visible. They are great for getting someone's attention, but if triggered from the edge of the FOV, you will likely loose the subject when the light comes on.

It is because the doorbell camera lacks robust WDR/HDR settings. I too came from Vivint and found this disappointing shock. Not too much you can about it at the moment other than adjust what's there. I managed to get mine a little bit brighter at the sacrifice of washing out the sky.

We did a Home Hub Pro, WiFi doorbell, 2x RLC-1240A, 2x RLC-843A (might exchange these for 2 more 1240's), 1x Duo 2 and 1x Duo 2 with floodlight. It gave a me a good reason to pull more Cat5e to other parts of the house while I was pulling the cable for these.

Overall we have been happy with the system. 2 issues that tech support could not resolve which almost made me return it, but those two issues are relatively small in the larger scope of how we plan to use it.

While I have your attention, how long does this 1 post per day thing last? It it somewhat frustrating.

@jpghts_130129873322119 is the IR on? IR lights can reflect off of dust particles, assuming you have some level of debris in the air.

@ken_197973053927635 my apologies. With my intent to be as comprehensive as possible, have a tendency to give more information than is often times needed. In your case, yes, two Nanostations would assume utility power at your camera side. I assumed no wired Ethernet but was not sure if there was power available so I included the extra information.

As an access point,150ft clear LoS with the Nanostation should produce good results. Forgive me as I do not know your experience with Ubiquiti products, here is a reasonably concise tutorial on setting up the Nanostation as an access point... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnl-tX7IUxE

A very important detail is your backhaul type. Wired or wireless? In other words, is your Nanostation wired directly to your router or is the backhaul wireless? If the backhaul is wireless, perhaps the Nanostation has a weak signal back to the router. If the RE305 is between them such as this ROUTER <--> RE305 <--> NANOSTATION, that's a lot of WiFi backhaul going on and your speed (not signal) is going to get cut in half at each hop. Now if any of those hops has a weak signal, it makes the speed decrease even worse. Unless absolutely unavoidable, all access points should be wired backhaul for best reliability/performance.

Lastly, I returned my Argus PT because it does not have continuous recording. In other words, the camera portion shut off to save power. Only the motion sensor stays active to wake the camera up when triggered. I do not know what the time out period is, but perhaps that is what you are experiencing? Just a thought.

When you say it doesn't do anything for transferring the signal, do you mean that it does not improve the signal or there is no connection at all?

Are you using the Nanostation on the local side as an access point or on the camera side as a bridge? As an access point, you'll want it mounted outdoors with a clear line of sight to the camera. 250ft is pushing the limits of WiFi in the most ideal conditions. On the camera side as a bridge point, your going to need a Nanostation on both sides for a point-to-point bridge. The bridge is going to give you the range and performance you need. I have deployed Nanostation bridges at ranges up to 3 miles with connections speeds over 600Mbps in ideal conditions. They are capable of much more however you have to take into consideration environmental factors. At 250 feet, a pair of Nanostations as a point-to-point bridge should perform flawlessly for you.