Cudde Excite vs. Bushnell 119300

Anthony · **Posted:** Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:41 am

First of all both of these cameras were mounted on a multicamera stand facing directly at the feeder and centered on the feeder.

The two photos below are of the same event. This allows us to compare them easily.

In the 3 days these cameras were competing the Bushnell took more than twice as many photos as the Excite and most subjects were centered in the frame.

The results are interesting. I left the size of these at 1024x768 so the you could compare the quality a bit better even though it causes you to have to scroll. They are still at 1/2 the original size !

1) The Cudde appears to zoomed in (?), the camera board is canted to the left (poor QA at Non Typical). Pic quality is excellent, Flash is good.

2) Bushnell is grainy, flash has similar penetration. Note the buck in the back is less recognisable in the Bushnell (Horns are not as distinct). A little bit of the saucer eyes on these as well.

2006 Cuddeback Excite:

2006 Bushnell 119300 IR (using Std Flash):

10pointer · **Posted:** Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:09 pm

Now you’ve really gone too far! Fixing the test so that Cuddeback pic shows an 8-MINUTE slower trigger time than the Bushnell? Boo Hiss! LOL

Hey, seriously, field of view looks about 25% wider on the Bushnell. What do you think, sounds like another bandaid for slow trigger time.

Anthony · **Posted:** Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:18 pm

10pointer wrote:

Now you’ve really gone too far! Fixing the test so that Cuddeback pic shows an 8-MINUTE slower trigger time than the Bushnell? Boo Hiss! LOL

Hey, seriously, field of view looks about 25% wider on the Bushnell. What do you think, sounds like another bandaid for slow trigger time.

Initially both cameras clocks were synchronized with my wrist watch. Over 4 days the Cudde became out of sync with my wrist watch... its wierd...

Not exactly....actually, the Bushnell has a trigger time 1/2 that of Cuddeback. The Bushnell photo looks the way it does if you are standing there. The Cuddeback looks like Digital Zoom.

code1 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:26 pm

Do you have any more night pics from the bushnell? How many Ft is the camera from the feeder in this test? I am what to get a new IT camera or to my self before fall.

Anthony · **Posted:** Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:49 pm

I have updated the review for this camera with several smaples. If you want more I can get them for you or put them in the photo gallery. The feeder is exactly 15 feet from the camera. In the cudde pics it looks like 6 feet... don't you think ?

Both cameras were pointed at the feeder dead center.

Roscoe · **Posted:** Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:36 pm

I noticed the same thing when I compared my homebrew to my Moultrie 200. The moultrie had a MUCH smaller field of view/more zoomed in picture than my HB. The zoom effect of some cams versus others is not terribly relevant in reality...the user will move the cam closer or farther away according to the need.

I've had several ocassions where the wide angle of the HB allowed me to get all 5 bucks of a bachelor group in a photo....but I've also had times when the 200 took a better/closer picture of a particular buck off the same tree.

Based on the pics above, the cudde night shots are way better than the bushnell.

hoosiermatt · **Joined:** Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:56 pm **Posts:** 7

Is 119300 the right model number? I thought it was 119200.

Anthony · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:27 am

hoosiermatt wrote:

Is 119300 the right model number? I thought it was 119200.

Yes 119300 is correct. This is Bushnell's 2006 entry into the IR market. The review is in progress on the website and there are more samples available now.

Bucktail · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:12 pm

Are both cameras IR?

Anthony · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:38 pm

Bucktail wrote:

Are both cameras IR?

The answer to this question can be obtained by reading the reviews on our main site but the answer is "No".

Bucktail · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:55 pm

Anthony, I did read same, but just wanted to see if I missed something.

Seems unfair to compare the white flash to the IR.

I know the IR will never be as good as the white flash, but it will accomplish what I need to be done in a area where the theft runs high on stands and cams.

Thanks,

Bucktail

Anthony · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:29 pm

Bucktail wrote:

Anthony, I did read same, but just wanted to see if I missed something.

Seems unfair to compare the white flash to the IR.

I know the IR will never be as good as the white flash, but it will accomplish what I need to be done in a area where the theft runs high on stands and cams.

Thanks,

Bucktail

Ok, you should have read that the Bushnell has two kinds of flash, one is Incandescent and the other is IR. The camera was on Incandescent flash during this period of testing.

It is now on its second period of testing using IR and we have the Cudde No Flash sitting next to it.

So, no I would not say it is unfair...

Bucktail · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:59 pm

Anthony,

A few photos from my Bushnell 11-9900. Day light and white flash. I'll send a few with IR when I can find where I put them.

Why does the photo from your test appear so much like a IR photo?

Bucktail[/img]

Chasingame.com discussion forum

Cudde Excite vs. Bushnell 119300

Who is online

Login Register	FAQ Search
	It is currently Sun May 19, 2013 9:51 am