Good reviews

[BSK]

either the imager is so insensitive to far IR wavelengths that the low number of photons striking it not registered correctly, causing an inconsistent activation of its elements and a resulting effective loss in resolution, or the IR filter that moves into place behind the lens is of such low quality that it introduces the blurriness (kind of equivalent to smearing something like vaseline on the lens surface). I'm inclined to think it is probably an imager sensitivity issue, since it seems like all black flash cameras have the problem (to somewhat differing degrees). The problem is that an imager optimized for low intensity IR light is not going to give good color daylight pictures.

I completely agree.

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager).

My old Reconyx RC60s use this system--two lenses.

 

[tellico4x4]

...and I still say, "Friends don't let friends buy Cuddeback."

I started replacing my Cuddebacks last year with Coverts. Now have 2 of the Extreme Black 60's & 1 MP6. Just put cam's out last week, so I haven't seen any pics off the MP6 yet. The 2 Extreme's were my first experience with "black flash", and yes they are a bit fuzzy at night, but I thought they were the bomb on monitoring scrapes. Daytime pics look like a post card though, very pleased with them. Battery life is awesome too!

Leaking & eating batteries were the biggest problem I had with the Cuddebacks. I still have 3 of them in service with 2 of them being leakers. I took a 2 lb. plastic coffee can and cut a wide opening on one side for lens, and a small one on the other side to run stap through. Painted them & put a leaker inside each and put them out about 8 days ago. I'll run them this weekend and am anxious to see if the coffee can idea worked with the rain we've had.

 

[BSK]

The strange thing about Cuddeback is, before they were "Cuddeback" they were "NonTypical." NonTypical produced some of the earliest and the best trail-cams (using film cameras) ever commercially produced. Once the company was sold and changed to Cuddeback, they produced two of the first (and still the best) digital trail-cams ever made, the C1000 and C3000.

Unfortunately, everything went downhill (and FAST) after that.

 

[tellico4x4]

I did cave in this year and bought one of the Moultrie Panoramic 150's. Sucker for trinkets I guess.No, it is not silent (as advertised) when the lens moves. However, I thought that it would be a good application on monitoring food plots. Will see....

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

either the imager is so insensitive to far IR wavelengths that the low number of photons striking it not registered correctly, causing an inconsistent activation of its elements and a resulting effective loss in resolution, or the IR filter that moves into place behind the lens is of such low quality that it introduces the blurriness (kind of equivalent to smearing something like vaseline on the lens surface). I'm inclined to think it is probably an imager sensitivity issue, since it seems like all black flash cameras have the problem (to somewhat differing degrees). The problem is that an imager optimized for low intensity IR light is not going to give good color daylight pictures.

I completely agree.

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager).

My old Reconyx RC60s use this system--two lenses.

Moultries I45S uses two lenses. One of the best cameras I've used.

 

[woodchuckc]

either the imager is so insensitive to far IR wavelengths that the low number of photons striking it not registered correctly, causing an inconsistent activation of its elements and a resulting effective loss in resolution, or the IR filter that moves into place behind the lens is of such low quality that it introduces the blurriness (kind of equivalent to smearing something like vaseline on the lens surface). I'm inclined to think it is probably an imager sensitivity issue, since it seems like all black flash cameras have the problem (to somewhat differing degrees). The problem is that an imager optimized for low intensity IR light is not going to give good color daylight pictures.

I completely agree.

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager).

My old Reconyx RC60s use this system--two lenses.

I didn't know that - I guess that is one reason why the RC60's were so expensive. High quality CCD's (imagers) with high IR sensitivity are much more expensive right now than high sensitivity visible light CCDs (at least in scientific equipment like confocal microscopes, which is the area I am familiar with) so until the next breakthrough in imager technology or unless the demand becomes high enough to mass produce them (not likely as they are a specialty niche item), the price will probably stay too high for us to see them in a lower price point ($200) camera.

 

[bowhunterfanatic]

I just finished setting up my first Covert. Will put it out later today. Hope it treats me well!

 

[Hollar Hunter]

I had 2 of the Moultrie M80 black flash running for about a year now with 0 problems... I got 7 more this year so next year I will know for sure on their durability... The only thing I can say I don't like is in the time lapse trail cam mode it goes from 1 minute to 5 minute intervals. I love that it has plot watcher mode and so many other choices for monitoring.

 

[Tracker56]

Got 1 Covert MP6 in the field for 3 weeks and still 90% battery life and 1 more on the way. Check Amazon or eBay and you can get 'em for around $120 with free shipping. Pics are great and battery life appears to be as advertised. I had to get used to night pics since I upgraded from a strobe flash, I know, I know, I just got indoor plumbing last week too.

Will continue to report back with camera review...

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . they produced two of the first (and still the best) digital trail-cams ever made, the C1000 and C3000.

Unfortunately, everything went downhill (and FAST) after that.

I still have a working C3000 (at least it worked throughout the 2012 deer season). Compared to today's standards though, battery life sucks and it uses D batteries ---- 4 D Duracells typically last only about a month before dying. And that's with the cam only able to take a pic as often as 1-minute intervals.

Things have gotten remarkably better in terms of what's available in the trail cam market-place compared to just 10 or 12 years ago. But seems most makes of today have very poor quality control compared to what we bought in the 90's and early 2000's.

Also have now obsoleted Non-Tyical film cams which I believe would still work. They were still working after 10 years when I quit using them. They now make excellent "dummy" cams.

 

[BSK]

But seems most makes of today have very poor quality control compared to what we bought in the 90's and early 2000's.

And why is that? Because those cams from the 90s and early 00s were made in America, not China.

Also have now obsoleted Non-Tyical film cams which I believe would still work. They were still working after 10 years when I quit using them. They now make excellent "dummy" cams.

I still have some around as well. The trigger unit itself never went bad, but the winder gears in the film cameras all broke over time.

 

[TheLBLman]

I still have some around as well. The trigger unit itself never went bad, but the winder gears in the film cameras all broke over time.

Noteworthy, the trigger speeds of those Non-Typical 35mm film cams was quicker than most cams being sold today, the images better, particularly on moving animals. Rarely was anything running by during the night blurry (like we see on our latest cams).

But now, hard to imagine being limited to only 24 to 36 pics on a trail cam you planned to not check for a week or two or longer. Then there was the trip to develop the film. Was much more costly then on a per pic basis.

 

[Boone 58]

 

[BSK]

Nothing worse than getting the pictures developed only to find out all 36 pictures were of a family of coons the first night the camera was out.

 

[TheLBLman]

Nothing worse than getting the pictures developed only to find out all 36 pictures were of a family of coons the first night the camera was out.

Ah, remember those days!
Actually, having coon pics dominate my film footage was ONE of the reasons I totally stopped using corn to attract deer in front of trail cams. Even before realizing the other drawbacks & dangers of using corn, it was causing me to miss a lot of deer pics because the coons would use up my film.

There was also lots of "learning curve" days, such as putting the cam on a small tree that would sway a bit in the wind. A windy afternoon could shoot up all your film in a couple hours, providing pics with no animals. Ditto for having some blowing around in front of the cam.

 

[BSK]

There was also lots of "learning curve" days, such as putting the cam on a small tree that would sway a bit in the wind. A windy afternoon could shoot up all your film in a couple hours, providing pics with no animals. Ditto for having some blowing around in front of the cam.

I would hate to actually know how much film and developing cost I wasted on wind--from swaying trees to falling leaves to tall grass moving in front of the camera.