MY RESULTS: Ltl Acorn VS HC600

rrroae · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:52 am

Slay, appreciate the effort you put into this. Definitely more work than people think.

Looking forward to the trail testing. If you could, please post what setting you're going to use prior to setting them up.

slay · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:42 pm

rrroae wrote:

Slay, appreciate the effort you put into this. Definitely more work than people think.

Looking forward to the trail testing. If you could, please post what setting you're going to use prior to setting them up.

Normally the physical aspect of this aint all that rough. It's the darn kneedeep snow that was crusted on top that made the 400 yard uphill hike a pain. The methodical placement of cameras and analyzing pics required a lot more effort than I thought it would as it is not something I usually perform. I mean really, I just look for racks appearing on my cams...LOL

I started the trail test today. I decided to set both the HC600 and the Ltl Acorn on zero delay. It was what most folks felt was best. After that, I may do a 2-3 pic burst every 10 secs or so.

camboy · **Joined:** Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:42 pm **Posts:** 74

Bushranger wrote:

Acorn has perfect sharpness, pics quality is much better than reconyx. I would call it strange:-).

And the scoutguard has to be "out of battery".

Bee Busy Outdoors · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:33 pm

Cant wait to see those results :mrgreen:

Chachoze · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:19 am

The Acorn certainly does take a nicer day photo than the Reconyx. Are the megapixels set the same on both cams?

If I had to guess I would say that the Reconyx is likely applying a higher level of compression to its photos which allows it to save the cards more quickly hense it's Rapidfire/Hyperfire mode of operation. If this is the case it would explain why their photos look more dull and a little blurry. It might be interesting to find an exact matching photo from each cam (or as close as possible) and compare the file sizes to see if there is much of a difference...

tomp · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:34 am

Chachoze wrote:

If I had to guess I would say that the Reconyx is likely applying a higher level of compression to its photos which allows it to save the cards more quickly hense it's Rapidfire/Hyperfire mode of operation. If this is the case it would explain why their photos look more dull and a little blurry. It might be interesting to find an exact matching photo from each cam (or as close as possible) and compare the file sizes to see if there is much of a difference...

It is apparent that Reconyx does either compress or keep file sizes to a minimum for increased write speed to the card and overall picture storage capacity to the card. THe HC600 can store 40,000 pics on a 16G card.

Roscoe · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:39 am

camboy wrote:

Bushranger wrote:

Acorn has perfect sharpness, pics quality is much better than reconyx. I would call it strange:-).

And the scoutguard has to be "out of battery".

RIF...Title of this thread is "Ltl Acorn VS HC600". No scoutguard in this test.

slay · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:23 am

Chachoze wrote:

The Acorn certainly does take a nicer day photo than the Reconyx. Are the megapixels set the same on both cams?

No, for testing purposes the Acorn was set to 12 MP. The Reconyx was could only go as high as 5 MP. That was done purposefully. I was letting both cameras operate at thier highest levels. Believe me, the 5 MP setting on the Ltl Acorn blew the Reconyx pics away also.

Chachoze · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:07 pm

Quote:

It is apparent that Reconyx does either compress or keep file sizes to a minimum for increased write speed to the card and overall picture storage capacity to the card. THe HC600 can store 40,000 pics on a 16G card.

Well then if it is compression then perhaps in future models they will give the ability to choose the compression ratio with the trade off being reduced speed in the number of photos taken letting the owner select what they prefer. (I beleive the MK10 has this ability)

If that would be the case I know I would be more apt to purchase one.

tomp · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:24 pm

Chachoze wrote:

Well then if it is compression then perhaps in future models they will give the ability to choose the compression ratio with the trade off being reduced speed in the number of photos taken letting the owner select what they prefer. (I beleive the MK10 has this ability)

If that would be the case I know I would be more apt to purchase one.

If you have issues with their quality, you might try contacting them and asking if this could be something that could be done with a firmware update or if there are other limiting factors. I will trade pic quality over all the faults of all the other cams, any day of the week. There is no other cam that can match the performance of their cams and I am not willing to trade that for slightly better quality. I am not going to copyright my pics or use them for any professional photography but do agree that better quality would be a positive for their cams.

fr0sty · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:18 pm

My thoughts also.

tomp wrote:

Chachoze wrote:

Well then if it is compression then perhaps in future models they will give the ability to choose the compression ratio with the trade off being reduced speed in the number of photos taken letting the owner select what they prefer. (I beleive the MK10 has this ability)

If that would be the case I know I would be more apt to purchase one.

If you have issues with their quality, you might try contacting them and asking if this could be something that could be done with a firmware update or if there are other limiting factors. I will trade pic quality over all the faults of all the other cams, any day of the week. There is no other cam that can match the performance of their cams and I am not willing to trade that for slightly better quality. I am not going to copyright my pics or use them for any professional photography but do agree that better quality would be a positive for their cams.

buxndux · **Joined:** Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 281

Just to clarify, the reconyx cameras are only 3.1MP. They have the option to shoot “HD images” but that only changes the aspect ratio to fit HD screens…there is no improvement in actual picture quality (somebody correct me if I’m wrong). I’m not sure that they do any compression to the files, but they are able to keep the file size small by keeping the MP count lower than most cameras. I would imagine this contributes to their ability to take pictures with minimum delay between photos. This also lets you fit more images on a SD card. They advertise 10,000 pictures on a 4 gb card. I recently filled up a 4gb card (actual capacity was ~3.7 gb) with 7,230 pictures…but 95+% of the pictures were taken in daylight, which have slightly larger file sizes.

Just based on looks alone, the lens on the reconyx appears to be higher quality than those on the scoutguards, which I imagine is similar to many other cameras such as btc, little acorn, etc. Not saying that reconyx images are better than the others, I agree there is room for improvement, but my perception is that reconyx decided to go with a higher quality lens and lower MP’s so they could achieve acceptable picture quality while keeping the file sizes small at the same time. This is all speculation on my part based on my own observations. Personally, I like the images from my reconyx’s much better than those from my scoutguards…both day and night. Everyone has different preferences though and what works for me may not work for others.

tomp · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:53 pm

I have only seen unacceptable pics from the cams that brharrsion had. The pics My HC600 took from here around the house have all looked great and very bright.

Chasingame.com discussion forum

MY RESULTS: Ltl Acorn VS HC600

Who is online

Login Register	FAQ Search
	It is currently Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:34 pm