Snoogsdad

I can see I'm a little late on this one but I've tested five digital cams so far and one more on the way. You can see the results on the website at my signature below.

John

Basswacker

Snoogsdad, not too late. I actually did read your reviews of the five cameras....did you test the Cuddeback 3.0?The results of yourreview, which appeared to be unbiased,did concern me, but I've seen a lot of quality pictures from multiple websites and different individuals taken with Cuddeback.I can just hope thatyoutested a lemon or older version. Actually, I didn't think the pictures taken with the one you tested were too bad? I'd liketothink I've done my homework on the cameras (at least the lower end)and I haven't seen many other negative reviews on the Cuddeback, other than the flash washing when the animal is too close and the viewing restrictions that you mentioned. Plus, I'm stretching it to spend $400 on a trailcam, the brands yourated the best werehigher than I was willing to pay.Thanks for you review, I think it will bevery helpfulto those that are willing/able to spend the $$$.

strut

I have taken over 5000 pictures with my Cuddeback and have no need to have a higher priced camera than it is, now if I was trying to get my pics in a national hunting magazineI might want one of the high dollar jobs but for scouting and just wanting to know what you have on your hunting ground the Cuddeback is more than sufficient for me.

Snoogsdad

I would say that the Cuddeback that I tested was the older version. They did not publisize what the MP was on that camera.

I guess that I am also biased since I have seen the pictures from the good cameras. Maybe if you haven't seen the thousands of pictures from the good and the bad it isn't as hard to be satisfied with the poorer pictures. I understand that you are not wanting magazine print quality pictures but if you are going to spend $400 you can get a much better camera for only $100 more dollars. Penn's Woods had the Digital Scout marked down earlier and may still and you can go to a company called Woodland Outdoor Systems and get a camera with a Sony 4.1 for about $500. I can't keep up with sales and closeouts on my site but bargains are out there from time to time. I'm also looking into trying a Woodland Outdoor Systems camera sometime soon myself. At $500 if it turns out to be a good quality camera the extra $100 would be well worth it. There is no comparison between the Sony 4.1 and the Cuddeback that I tested.

Finally it is fine with me if someone buys a cheaper camera, it is totally up to them. I shoot an old bow that barely cost over $200 dollars several years ago and am satisfied with it, but I haven't shot the new ones so I don't know what I'm missing.

I would just like to try to inform hunters about what they are getting. It was also a shame that the Cuddeback that I tested quit working so soon. Sometimes when a product goes haywire right out of the box it leaves a bad taste in your mouth although I tried not to let this jade my grading system. The Cuddeback I got was definitely a lemon but that did not effect the picture quality, just the electronics.

browtineMO

This photo was taken with Moultrie 1.3 Megapixel. $99 or less

browtineMO

One more try with photo

alwyshntn

here are a couple more from a Moultire Game Spy 1.3.....

alwyshntn

These are not my photos but a friend sent them to me before I purchased my Moultrie.

IL-Cornfed

You guys really surprise me by your comments on the Cuddebacks. I have owned 2 different Cuddebacks and the image quality, set-up, trigger, and controls don't even compare to the Leaf RIver DC-2 quality. In fact I have returned my Cuddebacks and replaced them with Leaf Rivers. I'll compare ANY of my LR pics with ANY Cuddeback pics?!?

IL-Cornfed

Here is a TEST comparing the mentioned digi trail cams including the new 3MP Cuddeback,Leaf River,Moultrie, and the Stealth. Just one more reason why the Leaf River is the most popular digi!