The camera is the cheap part
Hardware is usually the smallest line on a camera quote. What you are paying for is the labour of getting each camera into a position that is useful, powered, connected and weatherproofed.
That is why two quotes for "six cameras" can differ enormously, and why comparing them on camera count tells you almost nothing.
What actually moves it
Distance. A camera on the house is straightforward. A camera on a building four hundred feet away means getting a network out there first, which is a separate piece of work.
Cable routes. An accessible attic is quick; a finished basement, stone wall or fully-insulated shop is not, for exactly the same camera.
Environment. Dust, damp and weather off the lake mean rated enclosures and proper cable protection, which cost more and are the difference between a system that lasts and one that fails in a season.
Retention. For a business, how long footage is kept drives recorder sizing more than camera count. Thirty days at usable resolution is a different machine from seven.
Where the money is usually best spent
Fewer cameras in better positions, and the network done properly. A system of four well-placed cameras on a solid network will outperform ten mounted where the cable happened to reach, and it costs less.
The second thing worth paying for is local recording. Cloud-only systems lose everything during an outage, which on a rural connection is not a hypothetical.
Questions worth asking any installer
Where exactly is each camera going and what will it identify at that distance? What happens to recording when the internet drops? Is the equipment rated for where it is being mounted? Can the system be extended later without replacing the recorder? And, on a rural property: how is the signal getting to that building?
An installer who has not asked you about distances between buildings has not understood the job.