• Help Support TNDeer:

Disappointed in my Reconyx

I only saw issues with the Reconyx the first year they came out with the Hyperfire series. Since then, I've heard few complaints.
 
muddyboots said:
BSK said:
Every Moultrie I've ever owned failed within 6 weeks. Will never own another.
Click to expand...

Really. This is my third one a never had a minutes trouble. Batteries last forever. Now i always buy there top model so icant speak for the others.
Click to expand...

Same here. I used to buy Reconyx a few years ago, but it just doesn't make sense anymore. If I am going to have a camera fail, I would rather be out $150-$200 instead of $400-$500.
 
I got one, things a work horse (HC500) When I went to buy it I looked up the reviews, nothing but 5 stars. I tried 3 out before buying this one and when I did buy this the guy I bought it from said I could return it if I didn't like it but no one ever has, I wasn't the first. I've heard their CS is great and another reason I bought it.

I have noticed setup problems and times when it wasn't working right due to the setup. They are very heat sensitive and the sun in a hay field can set them off. Last setup problem I had was in a sunny location with high temps. Soon as I moved it and the air cooled it was back to rapid fire pics.

Thanks for this thread, I'll be keeping an eye on mine and glad to hear their CS is taking care of people.
 
I love Reconyx cameras. They are unquestionabley the most reliable cameras made. However, it is realyl hard to justify their cost, especially since so many other decent cameras can be had for so much less. Personally, I only buy black-flash cameras. In the past, the options for black-flash were very limited, which helped justify the cost of Reconyx. But this year, every manufacturer has a black-flash model, and many of these cams can be had for $200 or less. So now, a black-flash Reconyx costing $600 has to last 6 years ($100/year) while one of the cheap cameras only has to last 2 years ($100/year) to match the Reconyx in cost-benefit. In addition, many of these cheap cameras take better pictures than the Reconyx.
 
BSK said:
In addition, many of these cheap cameras take better pictures than the Reconyx.
Click to expand...
Without question, Reconyx still seems to be the quality leader in terms of reliability. But one of the main reasons we buy ANY cam is to get good, crisp images.

This is baffling to me as to why Reconyx hasn't increased their image quality. I've been getting significantly better image quality from homebrews for over a decade, and now most of the $200 to $300 price range commercial cams are putting out true (non-interpolated) 5.0 mp images that are noticeably better than Reconyx's 3.1 mp images.

Is Reconyx going the way of Cuddeback when it comes to not keeping up with their prior reputation and their competition? Just overpriced for what they are, with too much of the cost going into advertising, and not enough into making (or keeping) their cams better than the competition?

I can remember around the turn of the century when Cuddeback was the cat's meow --- producing both the best 35mm trail cams and soon followed, the best (commercially available) digital cams (for the price). Then they seemed to put most of their profits into advertising and marketing, producing mostly over-priced junk, imo.
 
Wes Parrish said:
BSK said:
In addition, many of these cheap cameras take better pictures than the Reconyx.
Click to expand...
Without question, Reconyx still seems to be the quality leader in terms of reliability. But one of the main reasons we buy ANY cam is to get good, crisp images.

This is baffling to me as to why Reconyx hasn't increased their image quality.
Click to expand...

Here's the answer I've gotten to that question Wes--write speed to the memory card. One of the strengths of the Reconyx is its ability to take burst-mode or follow up pictures very, very quickly (at 1/2 second intervals). They can only do this by having the image files be as small as possible. Increasing image quality greatly increases image file size, hence greatly slowing down the process of writing the images to the memory card.
 
BSK said:
Here's the answer I've gotten to that question Wes--write speed to the memory card.
Click to expand...
I do understand that, but believe it's partly BS to avoid upgrading their cams.

Competitors appear to be leaving Reconyx behind with the major advances that have been made over just the past couple years. If Reconyx doesn't make some image quality upgrades and SOON, imo, they'll need a major price decrease just to maintain a sliver of market share. I really want to see this American company thrive, not just barely survive. They may do neither if they just set back on their laurels.

A couple years ago, most of my cams' cards were in the 1 to 4 GB range. Now when I purchase new ones, I'm getting 16 to 32 GB ones for about the same cost of those 4GB ones a couple years ago. And the processing speed of the cards has greatly increased as well. Even if Reconyx had to go to a 0.75-second speed instead of their current 0.50-second, replacing those 3.1 mb images with a 5.0 mb image would be a huge improvement?

Today's cards can handle it.
 
I don't have a problem with the quality of the pics. I don't want it to miss anything and the batteries to last which it does.

I like this pic and got 1 a second of this deer. Unbelievably I shot this deer about 20 yards in from this spot while it bedded. Never got off the ground or even knew I'd climbed the tree this cam was on. Dressed out at 205#

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff4 ... G_0007.jpg[/IMG]
 

Latest posts

Back
Top