But, in general, if you're getting a subpoena it's because you are a bystander in an investigation, and if you're getting a warrant, it's because you are a target of an investigation. So a subpoena offers a bit more protection for you and is easier to push back against.
You can only fight a warrant after it's been executed (at least, mostly), but fighting it after the fact isn't nothing. If you win, the property seized must be returned, data collected must be deleted, and none of it can be used in court.
A is really my core objection here, the privacy violation of gathering all the camera's data is essentially unresolvable, someone will have at least looked at the footage and at best determined the camera is an interior camera and stopped reviewing it. Personally all my cameras are outward facing (though one is a ptz that could look into the office) and I have only local storage of the video. My other option would be to make an automation that deafens and turns any PTZ camera to the wall unless my alarm system is set to away.
But I don't think it's a real moral conundrum. As I said elsewhere, I think that if we as a society want to have police that can effectively investigate crime, they also need to have some invasive powers. And I think we do want to have such police, because the alternative is much worse.
The reality is that there is no such thing as an absolute right in pretty much anything, because it's rather common that exercising one right can infringe on a different right. So it's all necessarily about balance and compromise.