The sales answer is yes. The honest answer is that it depends on what the camera is doing and who is looking at it, and the honest answer is more useful when you are deciding where to spend.
Where deterrence is real
Opportunistic crime responds to visible risk. Someone deciding whether to try a door, take something from a yard, or break into a vehicle is making a quick judgment, and an obvious camera covering that specific spot changes it.
What makes the difference is that the camera is visible and clearly pointed at the thing. Deterrence is a message, and a camera nobody notices is not sending one.
Where it is weaker
Planned crime accounts for cameras. So does anyone wearing a hood, and so does anyone who has worked out that a given camera is not really watched. Internal theft is barely deterred by cameras at all, because staff know exactly where they are and what they cover.
And a camera that has visibly not worked for a year deters nobody, which is a reason to keep them working beyond the obvious one.
What cameras are unambiguously good at
Evidence after the fact. A recording that identifies a person or a vehicle is worth something concrete, to police and to insurers.
Resolving disputes, which is the use that surprises people. Slip and fall claims, delivery disputes, damage nobody will admit to, and staff disagreements about what happened. Plenty of sites get more day-to-day value from this than from anything security related.
Telling you what normally happens. A camera on a dock or a yard tends to reveal a process problem within a couple of weeks of going in.
What actually increases deterrence
Visible cameras at the decision points rather than hidden ones. Lighting, which does at least as much work as the camera. Signage, which costs almost nothing. And a system that visibly gets used, because deterrence depends on a belief that somebody is paying attention.
The honest framing
Buy cameras for evidence and treat deterrence as a real but partial bonus. Sites that buy purely for deterrence tend to under-specify, because a camera that only needs to be seen does not need to resolve a face, and then the day comes when it needed to.
Signage, and being careful what it claims
Signage is the cheapest part of deterrence and it does real work, because it removes any doubt about whether an area is monitored.
Two cautions, though. A sign advertising monitoring that does not exist is a claim, and a claim that can be relied on by other people is one worth not making casually. Similarly, dummy cameras are a false signal that tends to be discovered, and once one has been discovered every real camera on the site is treated as suspect too.
What signage does need to do varies by jurisdiction and by what is being recorded, and audio in particular is treated differently from video in many places. This is worth confirming for your situation rather than copying whatever the last building had on the wall.
The version that works is straightforward: clear signs at the points where somebody decides whether to proceed, backed by cameras that are actually there and actually recording.
Elite Security specifies for evidence first, because a camera that can identify someone also deters, and the reverse is not true. More like this in the blog, and commercial CCTV is where to start.