General Announcements about the website, Trail Camera Reviews in progress, New cameras coming out, New Photo contests, etc
I'm not sure how video or multi-shot cures the PIR issue. I had a Mad WildlifeEye with the same issue. I'd often get video of nothing. Now this was in a field situation where deer feed slowly. I'd often get them feeding outside the camera FOV. I finally figured this out by using another camera.
I'm not sure how video or multi-shot cures the PIR issue.

It cures it to the extent that if the animal triggers the camera before it gets in the FOV, the video will still be on or the second pic will likely get the animal in the pic. Either way, I don't see it as a huge negative for the camera. If we rolled the clock back a couple of years where most cameras were not getting very good battery life, it would be a much bigger thing to me. But on a cam that will take several thousand pics, a few blanks here and there is not that big a deal. I only did my analysis to further confirm what Anthony/Bill found in their testing. My preference would be a camera that senses an area just a little less than the FOV. While I did not add the results from the second camera(of the twin pack) that I tested the next day, it was virtually identicle to the first cam results and showed the camera sensed an area about 30% larger than the FOV. On both cams it was about 10% larger on the left side and about 20% larger on the right side. Which tells me that like the CII Anthony opened up, the fresnel lens in both these cams was mounted slightly askew as well. I can't say for sure as I have already returned the cams to my friend, and I don't imagine he wanted me opening them up anyway! :lol: :mrgreen: :lol:
Yes, if you are using the camera in a trail situation where the animal is moving across the sensor at a good pace, video and multishot would help. In fact, some slow trigger cameras intentionally employ this technique. In a field situation, my cameras with PIR FOVs wider than the camera FOV, you still get plenty of false triggers. So, I would say that video or multi-shot mode can mitigate this in some situations, but it does not solve it.

And I do concur that this is not a big issue. Memory is cheap. Unless your 2gb card is filling up, who cares about these empty pictures, just delete 'em.


I care when this lowers my battery life and I have to buy more batteries.

Even with my Mad WildlifeEye where the PIR FOV was intentionally much wider than the camera FOV because of the slow trigger time, the number of these triggers with nothing in the video was a fairly small percentage. How much battery life is it using? A couple percent maybe? Remember, what Boly giveth, Boly taketh away. When you don't change the PIR circuit, just the lens, you reduce the detection distance as you widen it. So, I would be more concerned with the pictures of game I'm missing compared to the Scout Guard then the number of empty pictures.


the PIR FOV was intentionally much wider than the camera FOV because of the slow trigger time

And there is the real point to me. The Boly cameras are among the faster trigger times on the market. There is no "need" for cameras this fast to be sensing outside the pic FOV. While I don't see it as big negative, I don't see it as a bonus either.
I agree, it is probably a wash for most applications. You are trading a slightly wider detection zone for a shorter one. Although the illumination distance is still pretty poor, I think the additional illumination / battery life trade was a small step in the right direction.
I never said the bar was theft proof it's simply a big step above the stock belt.I have lost several p41's with the pipe tru case because they simply cut the cable. The way it is pulled close to the tree it would be very hard to use a screw driver to break the taps you cant even see them. Bottom line is nothing is 100% secure they can always chainsaw down the tree if they want it bad enough.

On another note 3 weeks with the camera and I love it. Best stock cam I have ever used.....
You are right it is HUGE step up from the strap. All we were commenting on was how easy it would be to defeat from a theft standpoint. I like your idea because it is a relatively inexpensive way to keep the camera somewhat secure. I Like the little box better, but not really from a security standpoint as much as from an ease of use/setup standpoint.
As you say, nothing is 100% secure. I think these "security light" approaches really do provide a lot of protection if they are well thought out. The real question is, "How determined is the perpetrator?" I see a couple levels of protection:

- None - Just strap it to a tree
- Next to None - No tools required to steal it (SG550 with Python)
- Light Security - Requires common hand tools like screwdriver or multi-tool which many folks carry with them.
- Security Medium - Requires non-common tools like bolt or cable cutters or requires you to break the plastic on the camera to steal it.
- Security Good - Requires very big bolt cutters or chainsaw, heavy duty metal box protects camera. Uses shrouded locks. Even if camera is damaged, the SD card is protected and could let you identify the criminal.
- Security Heavy - Same as above, but a cement/rebar pillar replaces the tree, removing the chainsaw option.

Light Security will stop most opportunistic thieves. You know, the guy who wouldn't think of robbing you, but if you dropped a $20 bill on the sidewalk without noticing it, he would put his foot on it and distract you until you left then pocket it. Security Medium will deter all but the determined thieves. Most are too lazy to go back and get tools to steal a camera that may bring him $40 from a fence.



Yes. All mule deer. Cellular service is very spo[…]

Nice Late Season Buck

We designed the Ridgetec Lookout with a special fi[…]

Trail Cam repair question

thats great![…]