-
That depends what the requirement for the camera is.
As a device to record your daily urban commute, both front and back integrated cameras probably work fine.
As broadcast quality filming devices, or automated pothole warning devices, probably not.
NotThamesWater-
Given your own example, if the minimum requirement is to record your daily commute (for insurance/liability purposes) then:
- Not being able to show that the pothole that wiped you out actually existed on film would is an issue
- Not being able to show any cause of accident in any inclement weather is an issue
Try it yourself the next time it's raining and dark... take a photo with a cellphone with the flash turned on, of anything, and see whether your camera focused on anything other than rain droplets. Then try with the flash off but another light source to the side, and see whether the camera focused on the thing you lit up, rather than the immediate rain.
It's a fundamental issue with putting the light too close to the camera. It fails to work in anything other than ideal and well-lit scenarios... in which case, why bother integrating them considering British winters?
- Not being able to show that the pothole that wiped you out actually existed on film would is an issue
Velocio
No, now both functions are compromised.
The light cannot be too powerful due to battery drain, battery size, and heat management.
The camera is going to be useless in any inclement condition as the light is going to directly illuminate all rain/fog/snow/drizzle directly in front of the camera.
Additionally, I believe that cameras and lights should be mounted at least a foot apart to ensure that shadows are cast (in potholes, etc) that increase contrast and help the camera prove more useful in all conditions.
Yes it's cheaper, but everything is compromised. Not quite as bad as the integrated camera and rear light that I've seen before.