New Bushnell 4K cameras

[BSK]

How do you guys afford to spend $200 per camera for multiple cameras?

I write them off on my taxes! But honestly, I take the exact opposite angle that you do. Getting crisp, clear images at distance, so I can identify each buck in each picture/video, is critical hence worth the extra price. I've looked at tens of thousands of images from cheaper cameras and they always leave me frustrated at the poor image/video quality.

And jeez, 4k video... thats gonna chew through a set of lithiums in 4 weeks.

Trailcampro looks at the electrical draw of images and videos, and can produce an average battery lifespan for each camera based on a standardized image recording rate (images/videos per day). You wouldn't believe how long these new cameras will last on 6 lithium AAs. Some of the newer cameras will literally last years on a set of batteries. I took over a thousand 20 second HD videos (many at night, a real energy drain for the black flash) with several of my new Browning cams last year, and none of them dropped below 95% battery life.

 

[BSK]

And holy cow, the bang for your buck with the cheap cameras is light years ahead of what it used to be.

I will completely agree with that. Even the cheap cameras have dramatically improved over the last 5 years. However, I would still pay $100 more per camera for top-of-the-line image quality.

 

[TheLBLman]

Trailcampro looks at the electrical draw of images and videos, and can produce an average battery lifespan for each camera based on a standardized image recording rate.
You wouldn't believe how long these new cameras will last on 6 lithium AAs. Some of the newer cameras will literally last years on a set of batteries.

Along with what BSK has said, there is much more to the cam "cost" than just what you pay up front. There is the ONGOING "cost for usage", as well as the consideration of what you're getting relative to what you're paying (both up front as well as ongoing).

For example, one manufacturer sells a cam for $100 while another sells a somewhat comparable cam for $200. But that $200 only requires 8 batteries instead of 12 batteries, and those 8 batteries last twice as long as the 12 in the up-front "cheaper" cam.

But where cams can really cost you the most money is in their needing "servicing" more often, as in the fact you must spend gas money and valuable time in tending to them. Worse, when they're less reliable, you may be doing much of that tending work for nothing or very little, such as when the cams are not working properly if at all.

In the case of the particular $200 vs $100 cam above, I figure the $200 cam saves me more than $100 inside only 12 months of usage, plus it's more reliable and has more features.

Lastly, it's hard to figure the cost of a cam that's just not working or not working as well as one more reliable. What is the cost of missing some valuable pics?

 

[BSK]

Another point is, "What do you use cameras for?" If you use them for scouting, it doesn't take an award-winning image to know if a buck is a target buck or not. However, if you're running a census (which is what I use cameras for), if an 8-point buck walks 50 feet from the camera at 1 AM, I need a crystal clear, well-illuminated picture (actually 3-5 such pictures) to see his antlers clearly enough to differentiate him from the 23 other 8 point bucks I have in the census. THAT is where higher-end cameras come into play.

 

[BSK]

As an example of how miserly these new cameras are with power, here's a real-world test done by TrailcamPro of one of the newer cameras out this year:

"Picture & Video Resting Power (on): 0.45 mW

Picture Daytime/Nighttime Power Consumption: 1.1 Ws | 1.2 Ws

If this camera were to take 35 day and 35 night pictures every 24 hours, it would last 36.3 months in the field on a set of Lithium batteries."

Taking 70 pictures a day, 365 days a year, the batteries will last 3 years!

 

[megalomaniac]

Another point is, "What do you use cameras for?" If you use them for scouting, it doesn't take an award-winning image to know if a buck is a target buck or not. However, if you're running a census (which is what I use cameras for), if an 8-point buck walks 50 feet from the camera at 1 AM, I need a crystal clear, well-illuminated picture (actually 3-5 such pictures) to see his antlers clearly enough to differentiate him from the 23 other 8 point bucks I have in the census. THAT is where higher-end cameras come into play.

Good point.

Here in south MS where feeders are legal during hunting season, the cheap cameras aimed at feeders give me decent enough nighttime pics at 15 feet to be able to conduct an accurate census. No way I would be able to do that on a food plot.

In TN, mine are on salt licks. Same close pics.

Yes, it seems 10% of deer seem to figure out to avoid the feeder or salt lick (maybe the IR filter clicking on the cheap cameras?) And those deer would certainly be captured feeding /crossing plots at night.

But I'm really using cameras to find the younger bucks... but the ones with the best antlers... to make sure we have seen them before and DONT shoot our best 2.5 and 3.5yos. And those bucks seem to love to get their picture taken

 

[megalomaniac]

As an example of how miserly these new cameras are with power, here's a real-world test done by TrailcamPro of one of the newer cameras out this year:

"Picture & Video Resting Power (on): 0.45 mW

Picture Daytime/Nighttime Power Consumption: 1.1 Ws | 1.2 Ws

If this camera were to take 35 day and 35 night pictures every 24 hours, it would last 36.3 months in the field on a set of Lithium batteries."

Taking 70 pictures a day, 365 days a year, the batteries will last 3 years!

Insane! What has happened to allow such a difference from 5 years ago??? (I'm not tech savvy)

 

[BSK]

Insane! What has happened to allow such a difference from 5 years ago??? (I'm not tech savvy)

The revolution in camera technology truly is insane. The things these cameras can do now boggles the mind.

Actually, I think some of the "new players" in the market (with deep pockets) put some serious engineers to work figuring out how to make these things as efficient as possible, with amazing results. Some of the black flash cameras now have multiple settings that produce different exposures, including long-range for maximum flash distance, and "blur reduction" which is a very fast exposure time to reduce motion blur on night pictures (but this also reduces flash distance). But giving the user options is a great idea so they can tailor the setting to the intended use.

Another major improvement is detection circuits. Some of the new cameras will go from sleep mode to triggering on a moving target and taking a picture in 0.15 seconds. That's just crazy fast.

 

[AM84]

As an example of how miserly these new cameras are with power, here's a real-world test done by TrailcamPro of one of the newer cameras out this year:

"Picture & Video Resting Power (on): 0.45 mW

Picture Daytime/Nighttime Power Consumption: 1.1 Ws | 1.2 Ws

If this camera were to take 35 day and 35 night pictures every 24 hours, it would last 36.3 months in the field on a set of Lithium batteries."

Taking 70 pictures a day, 365 days a year, the batteries will last 3 years!

I am curious….which camera is this?

 

[BSK]

I am curious….which camera is this?

Browning Spec Ops Elite HP4

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . . giving the user options is a great idea so they can tailor the setting to the intended use.

Very true, and worth a few more dollars up front to have a cam with more options, plus typically longer battery life, quicker detection circuits, and better reliability.

Also, when and if you go the cell cam route, don't overlook the ongoing monthly costs for utilizing those cell cam transmissions. Some of the up-front lower cost cell cams charge more per month (or per pic), which coupled with shorter battery life, results in the purchaser actually paying more over the 1st year or two of use, while not getting the better features/reliability of a cam costing another $100 up front.

 

[JCDEERMAN]

Very good info in this thread. Customer service is key in longevity also. Warranty length and out of warranty fixing repairs play a big role for my selection. I have the "best of the best" and "worst of the worst", and I place them accordingly dependent on location

 

[BSK]

Just noticed this 4K video camera only collects 4K video at 20 frames per second. That would look a bit choppy. Usually it takes 30 fps to look smooth, and 60 fps looks realistic.