New cams for 2021

[MN Slick]

One of the guys from the Chasing Giants Podcast tested a number of cell cams, including the Tactacam, and even the best ones only got 50% of the pics. Unfortunately, they did not test the one from Reconyx. We have been running a couple Spartans and are convinced they somehow spook deer. Too many instances of bucks no longer using areas when Spartans are hung in the exact spots we've run Reconyx non cell cams. We're done with them.

We are guilty of relying too much on scouting cams and have to constantly remind ourselves of that. I sat in a blind on a food plot last Thanksgiving and had 4 bucks in bow range that never walked in front of the camera right next to the blind. And the instant feedback from cell cams makes one rely on it even more and probably saves more bucks than they help you pattern.

 

[Bassattackr]

Moultrie, poor customer service, cameras that take 100's if not 1000's of pics of nothing but tree shadows.

It makes me angry how much money I've lost on those stupid cameras.. Their "high end" management series were junk.

 

[Bassattackr]

We have been running a couple Spartans and are convinced they somehow spook deer.

Interesting, I've not had that experience with Spartan. Had a couple 3Y+ bucks repeatedly showing up after their picture taken, none ever looking at camera either.

Can't say the same for a couple of other "glow" cameras I've had. My old bushnells definitely spooked deer. I'd get a mature buck once, looking at the camera.. then never on that camera again.

 

[Bassattackr]

One of the guys from the Chasing Giants Podcast tested a number of cell cams, including the Tactacam, and even the best ones only got 50% of the pics. Unfortunately, they did not test the one from Reconyx. We have been running a couple Spartans and are convinced they somehow spook deer. Too many instances of bucks no longer using areas when Spartans are hung in the exact spots we've run Reconyx non cell cams. We're done with them.

I also followed that closely. Was kind of bummed Terry Peer didn't test the $300 Spartan against those. I actually asked him about the Reconyx and he said it was going to be a "working man's" test and it was beyond the $300 price point. He did say he has some Reconyx cell cameras and uses them though. That should also tell you something..

 

[PatinPA]

I've put cameras up side by side in the past and was amazed at the different pictures you get. Even with the same brand. Not sure if over time the triggering systems get less sensitive/more sensitive? I've seen deer walk in front of my cameras and not gotten pictures of them. I try to put mine head height in a tree and then facing downward. Not sure if that matters but it definitely seems like you need to have them "aimed" correctly.

Mentioned this in another post. I bought a Campark last year. It's chinese made but I was pretty impressed with it for the price. Now $85 on amazon. It's solid and takes really nice daytime pics and videos. the night times aren't the best. it's supposed to have it's own wifi so you can download the pics to your phone without going to the camera. I didn't get to play with that very much but it didn't seem to have much range.

 

[MN Slick]

I also followed that closely. Was kind of bummed Terry Peer didn't test the $300 Spartan against those. I actually asked him about the Reconyx and he said it was going to be a "working man's" test and it was beyond the $300 price point. He did say he has some Reconyx cell cameras and uses them though. That should also tell you something..

I ran a Spartan and a non-cell Reconyx on the same tree last year and the Spartan performed better than expected in terms of not missing pics. It missed a few pics but so did the Reconyx. However, the deer appear twice as far away on the Spartan cam which probably gives it a wide and longer strike zone to trigger pictures. Tougher to see details both day and night on the Spartan due to the distance but better than it missing pictures.

 

[MN Slick]

Interesting, I've not had that experience with Spartan. Had a couple 3Y+ bucks repeatedly showing up after their picture taken, none ever looking at camera either.

Can't say the same for a couple of other "glow" cameras I've had. My old bushnells definitely spooked deer. I'd get a mature buck once, looking at the camera.. then never on that camera again.

They don't seem to notice the flash but without question our older bucks avoid them on plots, scrapes and scrape trees in plots. 3 shot bursts on coyotes go like this: pic 1 walking by, pic 2 head snapped looking at cam, pic 3 no coyote which makes me think they hear something. Maybe it's the noise the cam makes when spooling up to transmit photos but unfortunately the Spartans we have can't be set up to send pics in batches at specific times to test that theory.

 

[SwampCat]

I know my cuddeback cams miss a few pictures, I think because of the detection beam width because almost no blank pictures. I have put Browning cams on the same tree and they dont miss as many deer - but have more total misses. I run between 20 and 30 cameras. The reconyx are great cameras - but no way would I pin $600 on a tree with a thumb tack - which is basically what you are doing. I have a couple cameras (or more) stolen, flooded, bear attacked - etc, every year. I often have three cameras on a single two acre food plot and they all get different buck pictures. I am a firm believer as a result of my own testing, that more cameras shows more deer. I would 100 times rather have thirty $100 Browning cameras out than five $600 reconyx. No comparison in the amount of data provided. I am also on the side of cameras save deer. We typically get a picture of a big buck or two and hunt them exclusively, and kill them about a third of the time. When we didnt have game cams - we shot the first three year old buck - usually several of them. Now, those bucks are safe on our land. And I often get 100’s of pictures in one year of the same old mature bucks.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

I know my cuddeback cams miss a few pictures, I think because of the detection beam width because almost no blank pictures. I have put Browning cams on the same tree and they dont miss as many deer - but have more total misses. I run between 20 and 30 cameras. The reconyx are great cameras - but no way would I pin $600 on a tree with a thumb tack - which is basically what you are doing. I have a couple cameras (or more) stolen, flooded, bear attacked - etc, every year. I often have three cameras on a single two acre food plot and they all get different buck pictures. I am a firm believer as a result of my own testing, that more cameras shows more deer. I would 100 times rather have thirty $100 Browning cameras out than five $600 reconyx. No comparison in the amount of data provided. I am also on the side of cameras save deer. We typically get a picture of a big buck or two and hunt them exclusively, and kill them about a third of the time. When we didnt have game cams - we shot the first three year old buck - usually several of them. Now, those bucks are safe on our land. And I often get 100’s of pictures in one year of the same old mature buc

I have about the exact same strategy as you and I think my observations agree with yours. The only downside with having all those cameras is that you need to have that much more self-control to not be checking the cards all the time, hence my investment in the cuddelink system.

I've tried the majority of camera manufacturers, and as best I can tell no buck has cared at all about its photo being taken, regardless of flash type and camera position. When they really start to freak out is from video mode on multiple brands of cameras. Now if I do run cameras in video mode I try to hang them a little bit higher and out of line of sight for the deer.

 

[Troubles Trees]

It makes me angry how much money I've lost on those stupid cameras.. Their "high end" management series were junk.

I have the same experiences. I had good luck with the early Moultree models and they lasted about 6-7 years. I later bought a few more Moultree and they only lasted 2 seasons so I switched to Cuddyback because they were what everyone was bragging up at the time but they had more issues in the first year I wouldn't even say any of them lasted 1 season. All the Cuddyback's started taking flat black videos in the first few months, the only way you knew there was a deer there was the glowing eyes.
I have wasted so much money on cams and have a pile of them that are all now junk. There are 4 simple tasks a camera has to do. Detect motion, take a video, flash and a timer. Why is it so difficult to produce a better camera

 

[Bassattackr]

I have the same experiences. I had good luck with the early Moultree models and they lasted about 6-7 years. I later bought a few more Moultree and they only lasted 2 seasons so I switched to Cuddyback because they were what everyone was bragging up at the time but they had more issues in the first year I wouldn't even say any of them lasted 1 season. All the Cuddyback's started taking flat black videos in the first few months, the only way you knew there was a deer there was the glowing eyes.
I have wasted so much money on cams and have a pile of them that are all now junk. There are 4 simple tasks a camera has to do. Detect motion, take a video, flash and a timer. Why is it so difficult to produce a better camera

You've had better luck than I have with them recently, my last moultrie purchase didn't even last a month.

I don't get floods or bears, had one stolen about a decade ago on a logging road but thats been it. So fingers crossed I don't get any Reconyx cams stolen.. To me it's much better having something that's reliable.

 

[Bassattackr]

I would 100 times rather have thirty $100 Browning cameras out than five $600 reconyx. No comparison in the amount of data provided.

This was my initial strategy for years but buying $100-$150 cameras every year to replace the one I bought previously got old. So did checking cameras with 30+ days of scrape activity only to find they had a single picture then shot cr@p. So now I'm going quality over quantity..

 

[SwampCat]

This was my initial strategy for years but buying $100-$150 cameras every year to replace the one I bought previously got old. So did checking cameras with 30+ days of scrape activity only to find they had a single picture then shot cr@p. So now I'm going quality over quantity..

I have been through quite a few different cameras. Pretty much settled on $120 Brownings and Cuddelinks. My $120 Brownings average five years - but to be fair, only had one just plain quit. Had eight flooded and six stolen, and two damaged by bears. That is over seven years. When they get stolen or flooded, you are proud they only cost $120 because the best cameras in the world wouldnt do any better - unless they can take going under water. That is 16 cameras out of service - plus the one that just quit

The jury is still out on the cuddebacks. They are only eight months old - and they work great where I use them because I have no cell service but can daisy chain them to an area that does get service

 

[Hoytvectrix]

I have been through quite a few different cameras. Pretty much settled on $120 Brownings and Cuddelinks. My $120 Brownings average five years - but to be fair, only had one just plain quit. Had eight flooded and six stolen, and two damaged by bears. That is over seven years. When they get stolen or flooded, you are proud they only cost $120 because the best cameras in the world wouldnt do any better - unless they can take going under water. That is 16 cameras out of service - plus the one that just quit

The jury is still out on the cuddebacks. They are only eight months old - and they work great where I use them because I have no cell service but can daisy chain them to an area that does get service

Im going to try my best to not turn this into another Cuddeback thread, but do you think having the linked system that doesn't require you to get SD cards has resulted in less deer being spooked?

It's nice for me because I have cameras where I normally wouldn't, which has helped better understand how they move through certain parts of the farm. The flip side of this is that I have nothing to compare to for me to see if those few extra visits are making a big change in deer patterns. I'm debating about buying in more and replacing my non-linked cameras for a part of the farm to see if those fewer disturbances mean more deer when we go in to hunt.

 

[PatinPA]

Man I must have really good luck with cameras. I've bought all my Cuddebacks used and I've had them all a minimum of 3 years now and some I've had for 5+. I've only had one problem. The infrared got stuck on one and all of the daytime pics were pink. I sent it back to Cuddeback and they fixed it for free even out of warranty. They are all the older C and E models. I have a nicer Browning $150 range that's been running great for 4 years. My dad has 2 old cheap wild game cameras that are still working 8+ years. I think they were called the Red 6. They're all black. It took the pic below in WV this past season. I am pretty sure that they do miss a lot of pics.

 

[SwampCat]

Im going to try my best to not turn this into another Cuddeback thread, but do you think having the linked system that doesn't require you to get SD cards has resulted in less deer being spooked?

It's nice for me because I have cameras where I normally wouldn't, which has helped better understand how they move through certain parts of the farm. The flip side of this is that I have nothing to compare to for me to see if those few extra visits are making a big change in deer patterns. I'm debating about buying in more and replacing my non-linked cameras for a part of the farm to see if those fewer disturbances mean more deer when we go in to hunt.

I dont think that is the case on my place. I live here year round and I use my land. I might coon hunt at night and hunt a stand the next morning 30 yards from where we treed a coon. I am out and about everyday on my place doing something weather permitting - from catching crawdads to hunting pigs at night. Seeing me is natural for the deer. I have neighbors on both sides that own over 100 acres - cattle ranchers. They and their hired hands are out everyday - checking fences, hauling hay, making sure waterers are working, repairing roads and trails, spraying, bush hogging - etc. They are covered up with deer. I own a piece of property with a US highway down one side of it. Biggest deer I have ever killed, I was sitting 103 ft from the centerline of an extremely busy highway. Reason I know it was 103 ft. because to be legal, we have to hunt at least 100 ft from centerline of a road and I measured. 18 wheelers coming by so close you can feel the vibrations - deer wont even look up. We have a 400 yard gun range on our property and often have to wait for deer to cross so we can shoot again - and not just young deer, either.

My business partner used to own 300 acres in GA and went there about every two weeks. His camera pictures greatly diminished every weekend when he visited. The deer knew he was there and were not used to his presence - and either laid low or moved off the property.

I know folks who own land just to deer hunt and stay out of it as much as possible. That isnt me - I bought my land to use to the fullest extent possible.

 

[SwampCat]

Man I must have really good luck with cameras. I've bought all my Cuddebacks used and I've had them all a minimum of 3 years now and some I've had for 5+. I've only had one problem. The infrared got stuck on one and all of the daytime pics were pink. I sent it back to Cuddeback and they fixed it for free even out of warranty. They are all the older C and E models. I have a nicer Browning $150 range that's been running great for 4 years. My dad has 2 old cheap wild game cameras that are still working 8+ years. I think they were called the Red 6. They're all black. It took the pic below in WV this past season. I am pretty sure that they do miss a lot of pics.
View attachment 34170

I think low cost cameras are a lot better than they used to be - and by better - I mean the lifespan, reliability, durability, etc - is better. Most of them, even the low end cams take pretty decent pictures. I bought three $110 Brownings last summer. Within two months, two of them quit taking pictures. I sent them back and they were replaced with a higher end model. Those cameras are the only two out of probably thirty Brownings I have owned that quit before they made five years. In fact, I have only had one other Browning quit and it was over five years old. My cams stay out year round.

But I have been through my share of low end cameras that didnt work - especially back five and ten years ago. And I have had a few high end cameras that quit on me - a reconyx after two years, and a Spartan that quit after three years. I did have an old die hard Spartan cell cam that I think made it six years - and never turned it off other than to change batteries or move it. I had a reconyx stolen and one go under water in a two week span about five years ago - and that broke me from buying high cost cameras. They are good cameras, no doubt - but they arent theft proof or flood proof. That is when I started buying more of the low end cameras and saturating my place - sometimes three cameras on a two acre food plot - or a camera on a barely discernible trail where I would have never put one of my limited $600 cameras - and find there is only one deer using that trail - but it happens to be a 150” buck that I havent got a picture of anywhere else.

This past New Years, I was visiting my daughter 150 miles away. It had been raining and I kept checking the rivergage online. We were supposed to stay for several days, but I got worried about flooding water and we drove the three hours home and I was out at midnight in waders picking up my seven cuddelink cameras. If I had waited a few more hours, I would have lost everyone of them except the cell cam.

This is what is so great about the game cam industry. There is a camera for everyone and every price range. I know folks who hunt for three weeks sitting over a feeder and buy a $28 Tasco every year and it is perfect for them. I know someone who is immersed in it and has a Buckeye system. He spends more time tinkering with his cameras than he does hunting - but that is what he enjoys. There are now $100 cell cams that are pretty dang decent. I have been running one for 2 1/2 years now. I really like these type cameras for putting on multiple feeders for off season hog control. Turn the cell plan on and off as needed. And then there is the cuddelink system that allowed me to set up a texting camera system over a large area of absolutely no cell service and daisy chain to a cell cam in an area that does have service.

The game cam industry has come a LONG way in the past 20 years. The multiple companies involved insure that competition will keep driving to make cameras better, more dependable, and with more features. To be honest, I probably get more enjoyment from my cameras than from the actual hunting.

 

[Tamarack]

Curious if anyone ever owned a Camtrakker and how long they lasted. My first cam was Cuddeback's 35mm that I ended up trading in for their first digital one, which finally stopped working last year.

 

[PatinPA]

I think low cost cameras are a lot better than they used to be - and by better - I mean the lifespan, reliability, durability, etc - is better. Most of them, even the low end cams take pretty decent pictures. I bought three $110 Brownings last summer. Within two months, two of them quit taking pictures. I sent them back and they were replaced with a higher end model. Those cameras are the only two out of probably thirty Brownings I have owned that quit before they made five years. In fact, I have only had one other Browning quit and it was over five years old. My cams stay out year round.

But I have been through my share of low end cameras that didnt work - especially back five and ten years ago. And I have had a few high end cameras that quit on me - a reconyx after two years, and a Spartan that quit after three years. I did have an old die hard Spartan cell cam that I think made it six years - and never turned it off other than to change batteries or move it. I had a reconyx stolen and one go under water in a two week span about five years ago - and that broke me from buying high cost cameras. They are good cameras, no doubt - but they arent theft proof or flood proof. That is when I started buying more of the low end cameras and saturating my place - sometimes three cameras on a two acre food plot - or a camera on a barely discernible trail where I would have never put one of my limited $600 cameras - and find there is only one deer using that trail - but it happens to be a 150” buck that I havent got a picture of anywhere else.

This past New Years, I was visiting my daughter 150 miles away. It had been raining and I kept checking the rivergage online. We were supposed to stay for several days, but I got worried about flooding water and we drove the three hours home and I was out at midnight in waders picking up my seven cuddelink cameras. If I had waited a few more hours, I would have lost everyone of them except the cell cam.

This is what is so great about the game cam industry. There is a camera for everyone and every price range. I know folks who hunt for three weeks sitting over a feeder and buy a $28 Tasco every year and it is perfect for them. I know someone who is immersed in it and has a Buckeye system. He spends more time tinkering with his cameras than he does hunting - but that is what he enjoys. There are now $100 cell cams that are pretty dang decent. I have been running one for 2 1/2 years now. I really like these type cameras for putting on multiple feeders for off season hog control. Turn the cell plan on and off as needed. And then there is the cuddelink system that allowed me to set up a texting camera system over a large area of absolutely no cell service and daisy chain to a cell cam in an area that does have service.

The game cam industry has come a LONG way in the past 20 years. The multiple companies involved insure that competition will keep driving to make cameras better, more dependable, and with more features. To be honest, I probably get more enjoyment from my cameras than from the actual hunting.

I had one of those $28 Tasco's. Took blurry photos and died in a year. Bought a Wosports last year for $35. Not a bad little camera for cost. Lasted all last season and was still working when I pulled it so will hopefully at least get 2 out of it. Reconyx are out of my price range at this time in my life. Was going to score some cuddelinks from my cuddeback craigslist guy but his ad didn't show up this year so I might be SOL.

 

[SwampCat]

Curious if anyone ever owned a Camtrakker and how long they lasted. My first cam was Cuddeback's 35mm that I ended up trading in for their first digital one, which finally stopped working last year.

I can remember the anticipation of taking that roll of film to walmart one hour photo to see what had been in front of the camera, only to find a piece of johnson grass blowing in the wind. Those were the days!