three camera test

In this test we have the following cameras placed on a stand together. The cameras are all the same height and pointing at the same subject area. In order to make this a fair test we set the delay to one minute on each camera and burst mode is not used. The camera models are as follows:

Cuddeback 3.0
Moultrie 200 (4.8 firmware)
Stealthcam WD2.

Three Cam Test Update on 04-23-06: (after 10 days)

Conceived as a good idea but now we have some reservations because, nature threw us a curve. When cameras are designed, there is a set of parameters that are looked at in order to make the electronics fit the environment. Each manufacture has a different set of conditions that they feel that there product must operate in. This past week we had a twenty degree swing in temperature which almost reversed all findings as far as our testing was concerned. Camera A, B, and C took these changes in totally different ways. The cameras designed to work well in the higher temperatures did not function nearly as well as the cameras which desire the cooler environment. This tells us that we must have a week to where the conditions are parallel and all is equal, in order to intelligently come to a logical conclusion. Folks using these cameras live in areas ranging from the palmetto flats of Florida to the timber country of Alaska. The medium is going to have to be determined by where this camera is going to be placed. In Florida I might pick the Moultrie 200 over the other two due to the way it functions in that environment. This would really open up the eyes of the folks in Ontario Canada which say they found that the Cuddeback performed best. Those folks in Nebraska picked the Stealth Cam. In essence we have many options to choose from but given the degree of variables, Mother Nature rules in our quest for the ultimate Trail Camera.

This test will continue through the next few weeks, hoping that we have some degree of continuous conditions in order to complete stage one.

Our next approach to this test will be to lower each cam to near ground level (12 to 18 inches) to try to eliminate difference to the way the PIR cone of each camera looks across the target area. Stealth Cam WD 3 MT will also join partially for a basic sensing comparison during the first couple of days of the next phase. At this given point I will say that during this “sensing” test all cameras have performed very good and surprising us because of a small temperature change. All cameras were set to max sensitivity during the test. Jumper options on the Cudde will be addressed later in the test.

May 15, 2006 - Final Conclusion:
After we had a big temperature swing that pretty well messed up our testing, we finally had a good period of time where conditions remained steady. Our initial findings were that the Stealth WD 2 and Moultrie 200 far out sensed the Cudde 3.0. Several folks suggested that we move the jumper to the max and re do the test. When we pulled the Cudde to move the jumper we found that the jumper was already in the max position so all previous findings still stand. Just to be fair we went ahead and did another couple weeks of the same test and again the Cudde failed by about 50% in its ability to sense. Both the Moultrie and Stealth took right at double the amount of pictures. The last go around the M 200 took the most by just a small margin (less than 10) and the previous test the WD 2 beat the M 200 by about the same so we will give them equal credit for their sensing ability. Our hats are off to these two less expensive cameras for their performance against a really good more expensive camera.