Your best bet is to use one of these and not fiddle with xbee cameras: http://www.ebay.com/bhp/long-range-wireless-camera

link is broken

I'd go for a rc FPV kit, there're often just wireless security camera's but then used in Rc planes or helicopters.
Keep in mind that you don't transmit video on the same frequency as your EZ-B, you'll lose connection.
Also check your local laws for the maximum transmitting power you are allowed to transmit on without a permit, you could get a fine.

Keep in mind that you don't transmit video on the same frequency as your EZ-B, you'll lose connection.

I am a little confused here, are you referring that if they aren't on the same frequency you will lose connection, or if they are you will lose connection. Because both the transmitter I found and the camera pointed out by DJ Sures happen to be 2.GHz, the same as the XBee Pro I am planning to buy.

I like the Camera that DJ has shown me, but I don't so much like the price. The camera and transmitter that I have found so far total up to be $70, where as the long range camera and reciever are worth $170. I am not 100% sure where I am going to go with it so far, but if there is one thing I am curious about. When transmitters say they have 1W or 2W, etc, are they reffering to the watts of audio, or the watts of power? B/c the transmitter I found you can spend more for watts and I am not sure what they mean in watt.

Lastly, bundel0 in transmitting power, are you reffering to the radio waves, etc, or the power for transmitting. I have never heard of this law before so will make sure that I am ok. Thanks for pointing that out, if there is a limit then I could have been fined, although I doubt anyone here is smart enough to enforce those laws.

Touching on frequencies here , to have range AND also make sure that your channel does not overlap your xbee my personal recommendation would be a wireless IP camera. Using a analog camera that does not narrow its frequency to 10 mhz or less increments can overlap and overpower your xbee. Here's an example but there are lots.of awesome WiFi type long range camerashttp://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=261192411593&cmd=VIDESC

I understand what you mean using an IP camera not to interfere with the XBee, but where I will be using it there will be no cell service or wifi, so it makes it hard to use one if they require internet, etc. The transmitter has 5 different channels, i am not sure if that can make a difference or not but if I get an XBee at a lower frequency will that make things worse or better. B/c I don't know of transmitters that work at 10mhz, the lowest I have seen is 800mhz.

But in this case do the frequencies than need to be as far apart from eachother not to interfere, or do they need to be as close as possible. It seems from what I have read here they need to be as far apart, but I am not 100% sure.

Do the IP cameras require internet in order for them to work? And to view them do you have to use internet browser? My plan was to use an LCD screen to view what the robot was seeing, and put it by my computer, that way I would have more space for my controllers, PWM, etc.

You can you an IP camera three ways. You can use the first two for an onsite video link.

- Ad Hoc WiFi direct connection to WiFi adapter on the PC

- WiFi passive through connection through a router.

- WiFi to internet and viewed over internet through the web

If you want max range from a laptop you need to use a external WiFi adapter that has a external antenna to match the needed range of your camera. I'm referring to a direct connect ad hoc connection without a router in the mix.

What I was referring to about 10 mhz is channel separation. WiFi has 16 channels between 2400 and 2500 MHz. A WiFi based device will choose an available unused channel to avoid any interference.

This has a 750 ft range but pricy... It has a separate screen but not WiFi. I would do WiFi http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=261192411593&cmd=VIDESC

I have had issues before trying to connect devices over WIFI, it seems complicated (even though its not) and has never worked for me before. I have a mobile broadband from telus, tried to use an ethernet cable to connect to a PS3 for internet. The devices recognized eachother and I was able to share files, tried internet never worked.

Everytime I try using wifi to connect devices, they never work. I have very bad luck trying to connect devices with WIFI and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again. If I can get a transmitter with enough frequency difference and many channels, would I be seeing much interference. Also the recieving end of the camera needs to output in AV cable to attach to the small LCD screen that I will be attatching to a box casing with the receiving XBee and possibly a reciever inside, with antennas sticking outside.

I like the idea of wifi, but I am really worried about it not working, and 650 ft wont be enough, that is 225 m. Only twice the distance of the EZ-B camera I already have. The idea is good, I understand your point with wifi channel separation, but at 225 m it isn't worth spending all that money. Plus I will still need an ad hoc adapter.

I think a transmitter with enough channel separation will be my best choice, as for I can get 1000 m out of them. The one that I have been looking at has the same frequency as XBee but also has 4 channels. I am not sure if that is enough though.

Here is something that I would consider, just the frequency might not let this one work. If I can find a similar product to this with a difference in frequencies but similar size, shape, etc, I would trust that it would work. Also here is the camera, which is very cheap.

I am really sorry but WIFI doesn't sound very satisfying, and outputting to a computer isn't going to help me out with the LCD screen issue.

Its up to you. Take in mind 600 ft is two football fields , do you really need more than that? Well anyways goodluck

OK I totally understand what you mean by 2 football fields, yes that is a lot of distance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with IP Cameras, I have no disrespect for them, as for they work great for many people, and hold many good characteristcs. As for interferance is not an issue when using them, which is very good. My problem more stands my history with WIFI and that it would output in USB and not AV.

Thanks for pointing me out to them, as well as notifying me that the connection between the two could effect one another (XBee and trasmitor). Do you think I will be safe with the one shown, or more frequency separation? If not, will a lower frequency XBee make it better or worse? (does it matter which device is higher or lower from 2.4GHz)

If you need to run two long range devices close together it is best the frequency is not close together. So yes a lower frequency xbee and 2.4 GHz camera is a better combination.
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9099
ZigBee PRO 900mhz with small antenna connector for long range up to 6 miles

Another ZigBee 900 MHz with wire antenna
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9097

Both support 128 bit Encrypted link at 256kb serial link

Although if I use a 2.4GHz XBee I can change the channel to anything between 2.4GHz and about 2.48GHz, There are at least 15 ch, see here. If I change the channels on the cheaper XBee Pro ZB enough, will this stop interference? If so it will be half the price. As for the 900's are more expensive, but travel at far distances, distances I don't even need. I have a tough time buying more than what I need, so will the ch on XBee as well as the 4 ch on the transmitter be enough, or should I be buying an XBee Pro 900 MHz?

Also here shows the ch and conflicts between them. If I change the ch to 25 (2.475 GHz) or 23 if what I buy is not new enough (2.465 GHz) I think I would be fine, as for it has no conflict. But Clearing this up would be good, will this be enough?

So how far do you "need" and is it line of site or is it possible there could be buildings or trees in the way? The thing about buying wireless is they rate the product on the max it could perform in a laboratory setting. That means no interference, no trees, no sun radiation , perfect world. When you add those factors the reliable distance plummets. Anything other than open line of sight with no obstructions will cause a drop.

I would like to be close to 1 Km, at least 500/600 m, the WIFI gave 600ft (roughly 200 m). The XBee Pro ZB gives 3.2 Km in a "Perfect World", but even if it only performs a third of that I will be happy, that is why I don't want to buy a 900 GHz as for it is way more than what I need (24-50 Km). All I need is the XBee Pro ZB if interference is not an issue.

On the web site that I found the XBee has 25 channels that it can go on, And you can set it up to automatically go to available channels within the min and max range that you wish. If I set it up to stay a few channels above the transmitter (2.4GHz) Do you think I should be OK? As for the transmitter that I showed you is very small and has a 1000m range in a "Perfect World". But I know that it decreases dramatically as walls become a factor, that is partly why I want it high, as for i will be a fair distance but metal walls will be close by. It will mainly be outside but objects will be around it.

Basically I will be in a truck controlling my robot that is outside (truck has walls, and radio-waves (will shut it off)) my robot will drive across a smaller field to where a well site will be held. It then goes into a metal building and checks the H2S levels from my H2S monitor. If there is H2S, I encourage not to go in there, if levels are clear then it is OK to go and work in there.

The reason you want 900 MHz is that most the long range cameras will not automatically signal hop and they have a wider frequency. So anyways if its going into buildings 900mhz has 3 times greater building penetration. Its ideal. Well it look like you have all the information , next step is to buy some equipment... Have fun

thanks for the help i am going to close the thread because i am tired of getting emails everyday

Close the thread? I don't think there is a way to do that. You can turn off email notifications but it's all or none. I don't believe we have a way to single out a thread yet.

Marking as answered is what is being refereed to, since the questions were not marked as answered before it automatically reminds the OP to mark it as answered if it has been. Marking as answered is the better solution to turning off email notifications, there are far too many answered questions which remain marked as needing assistance - those who have helped answer the questions should receive the credit that is due (it helps new members know who is helpful, who to turn to etc. and gives the helpful members credit for their efforts.

Not that I want to police the forum and remind everyone to mark questions as complete when they are, but it would help out when you tick the box to show only posts that require assistance (there are over 4 pages, most of which no longer need assistance).