Low-cost depth-cameras have been used in many PLF applications. The cameras use one or a combination of three technologies: structured light, time of flight (TOF), and stereoscopy. The objectives were to evaluate different technologies for depth sensing including measuring accuracy and repeatability of distance data and measurements at different positions within the image, and cameras usefulness in indoor and outdoor settings. Then, each camera was tested in a swine facility. Five different cameras were used: (1) Microsoft Kinect v.1, (2) Microsoft Kinect v.2, (3) Intel® RealSense™ Depth Camera D435, (4) ZED Stereo Camera (StereoLabs), and (5) CamBoard Pico Flexx (PMD Technologies). Results indicate that there were significant differences for all cameras (P < 0.05), except for TOF cameras (Kinect v.2 and Flexx). All cameras showed an increase in the standard deviation as the distance between camera and object increased; however, the Intel camera had a larger increase. TOF cameras had the smallest error between different sizes of objects. All cameras showed some distortion at the edges of the images. TOF cameras had non-readable zones on the corners of the images. All cameras except ZED captured a recognisable image of a pig within the swine facility. In conclusion, understanding the errors associated with each type of technology is needed. It appears from these results that the time-of-flight technology is the best to be used for indoor PLF applications.