Good reviews

[BSK]

Just talked to a guy I buy a lot of cameras from (internet seller), and he said he is hearing a lot of good reviews of about the 2012 and 2013 Covert cameras (especially their "black" models), and the 2012 and 2013 Moultrie models, most specifically the M80 Black from last year and i990 for this year.

 

[Shed Hunter]

Covert will probably be my next camera.

 

[Andy S.]

Thanks for sharing. I'm assuming he's referring to good picture quality/battery life/features/etc as durability/withstanding the test of time are premature at this point, correct?

 

[primos32]

Thanks for sharing

 

[JAY B]

Putting my new Covert black 60 out tomorrow!

 

[Vermin93]

Love to hear this. I have black flash Coverts inbound from Wing Supply. Can't wait!

 

[BSK]

Thanks for sharing. I'm assuming he's referring to good picture quality/battery life/features/etc as durability/withstanding the test of time are premature at this point, correct?

Primarily, good reliability (lack of unit failures), and buyers happy with their purchase.

 

[Rick Dillard]

I have been using Covert trail cameras for the last 3 years and have been extremely pleased with their performance. So far I have used the following models: Covert II, HR 8.0, CA 3.0, Reveal, and Extreme Black 60.

Failure rates/problems are way less with Covert cameras than what I experienced with Cuddeback cameras. Covert customer service is also "tops" in my opinion. Whenever I did have a problem, I sent the camera to them and it was quickly replaced with new one.

Last year, I tried the Extreme Black 60 and was very impressed with it. Daytime photos were exceptional. Nighttime photos were good, but sometimes had motion blur. I overcame this slight weakness by setting the camera on 3-shot burst and 30 second interval. By doing this many of the nighttime photos came out clear and sharp. What I was most impressed with was the increase in buck photos at scrapes compared to other cameras (white flash and red glow). None of the deer appeared to notice the camera and continued to visit the scrapes.

A few weeks ago I have purchased several Covert MP6 black cameras (smaller version of Extreme Black 60) from Wing Supply. I expect similar performance from them as the Black 60.

 

[Andy S.]

Thanks for your firsthand feedback Rick. I personally put more stock in someone's opinion who has 3+ years of experience with various models from a single camera manufacturer, and furthermore their customer support, just as you described. Also, I got your email this morning and will follow up with my taxidermist today to see if I can get you some more information pertaining to that buck.

 

[BSK]

Of the cheap Chinese cameras, I believe Covert and Bushnell CURRENTLY have the best reputations, although both manufacturers had their problems in the past.

It also appears Moultrie has really improved dramatically of late. A few years ago, I wouldn't use a Moultrie if you gave it to me. However, starting with their 2012 models, they seem to have vastly improved their quality.

I'm still not a fan of WGI or Primos.

 

[BSK]

...and I still say, "Friends don't let friends buy Cuddeback."

 

[Andy S.]

Primarily, good reliability (lack of unit failures), and buyers happy with their purchase.

Thanks Bryan!

 

[BSK]

My source also likes the Browning Recon Force and Spec Ops cams. He says they have very fast triggers and take great color pics. In his words, "These are very good cameras."

 

[BSK]

In addition, he and I both agree the Uway VH200B is the only Uway cam worth considering. We both have had good results from this model cam but poor results with other Uway products (although I have had exceptional results from the Uway flash extenders, both IR and black-flash).

 

[Good time Charlie]

I think I would go with a moultrie if I were to buy a cam under 200 bucks.I base this on other peoples opinions.
The biggest killer of any cam is water and moisture..keep them Dessicant packs and Zorb it in them cams
When we build a homebrew we do a dunk test..hold the box under water for several min.But this is before the electrical componets are installed.

 

[woodchuckc]

I have been liking my Covert Black 60's so far. I've had 2 for over a year and just bought and put out another one a couple of weeks ago (a 2012 model for $139 including shipping). The only problem I had was one had a leaking seal after about 10 months - it was replaced with a new one quickly and painlessly.

I really like the daytime pictures - sharp, good color saturation. The night pictures are not the greatest - they do have significant motion blur and are pretty grainy. They have an excellent trigger time and great sensing and super battery life. Here are a few examples from this spring from a couple of salt licks (they have been resized to 800x600 pixels):












And a final picture of a coyote violating my salt block:

 

[BSK]

woodchuckc,

In my opinion, the Covert cameras take the best daylight pictures of any commercial trail-cam. They are getting close to homebrew camera quality in proper color saturation. I just don't like the "fuzziness" of their night pictures. And I'm not talking about motion blur--all black-flash cams have that problem--but the actual crispness of the image focus. I find the Covert to be a tad too fuzzy for my uses.

 

[woodchuckc]

You are right BSK - the night images, even in the absence of motion blur, are quite fuzzy (even more so than the red flash cameras I used to have). Since the focus hasn't changed between daytime and nighttime pictures (it is a fixed focus system) and the imager is the same, it has to be one of two things (I think): either the imager is so insensitive to far IR wavelengths that the low number of photons striking it not registered correctly, causing an inconsistent activation of its elements and a resulting effective loss in resolution, or the IR filter that moves into place behind the lens is of such low quality that it introduces the blurriness (kind of equivalent to smearing something like vaseline on the lens surface). I'm inclined to think it is probably an imager sensitivity issue, since it seems like all black flash cameras have the problem (to somewhat differing degrees). The problem is that an imager optimized for low intensity IR light is not going to give good color daylight pictures.

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager). I would be surprised if something like this is not being worked on behind the scene at some of the big trail cam companies. Right now I imagine it would be too expensive to build and market a camera like that.

 

[W.Seay]

My covert black 60's are awesome!!!! I can't say enough good about them!

 

[TheLBLman]

HA!

...and I still say, "Friends don't let friends buy Cuddeback."

With friends like you, guess I REALLY don't need any enemies! :grin:

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager). I would be surprised if something like this is not being worked on behind the scene at some of the big trail cam companies. Right now I imagine it would be too expensive to build and market a camera like that.

Actually, Cuddeback did that many years ago (although it was "red glow" not blackflash).

It was called the Cuddeback "NO FLASH", properly relabeled by me as the Cuddeback "NO COUNT". BSK & I both got suckered into buying them. And YEARS AGO they cost almost as much as a Reconyx. The "NO COUNT" nightime images were so poor & blurry that most were just totally useless. Worse, that "invisible" red glow was very bright and commonly caused cam avoidance.

IMO, the Cuddeback NO FLASH was the biggest blunder ever achieved by a major manufacturer of trail cams. VERY OVERPRICED PIECE of JUNK.

 

[BSK]

either the imager is so insensitive to far IR wavelengths that the low number of photons striking it not registered correctly, causing an inconsistent activation of its elements and a resulting effective loss in resolution, or the IR filter that moves into place behind the lens is of such low quality that it introduces the blurriness (kind of equivalent to smearing something like vaseline on the lens surface). I'm inclined to think it is probably an imager sensitivity issue, since it seems like all black flash cameras have the problem (to somewhat differing degrees). The problem is that an imager optimized for low intensity IR light is not going to give good color daylight pictures.

I completely agree.

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager).

My old Reconyx RC60s use this system--two lenses.

 

[tellico4x4]

...and I still say, "Friends don't let friends buy Cuddeback."

I started replacing my Cuddebacks last year with Coverts. Now have 2 of the Extreme Black 60's & 1 MP6. Just put cam's out last week, so I haven't seen any pics off the MP6 yet. The 2 Extreme's were my first experience with "black flash", and yes they are a bit fuzzy at night, but I thought they were the bomb on monitoring scrapes. Daytime pics look like a post card though, very pleased with them. Battery life is awesome too!

Leaking & eating batteries were the biggest problem I had with the Cuddebacks. I still have 3 of them in service with 2 of them being leakers. I took a 2 lb. plastic coffee can and cut a wide opening on one side for lens, and a small one on the other side to run stap through. Painted them & put a leaker inside each and put them out about 8 days ago. I'll run them this weekend and am anxious to see if the coffee can idea worked with the rain we've had.

 

[BSK]

The strange thing about Cuddeback is, before they were "Cuddeback" they were "NonTypical." NonTypical produced some of the earliest and the best trail-cams (using film cameras) ever commercially produced. Once the company was sold and changed to Cuddeback, they produced two of the first (and still the best) digital trail-cams ever made, the C1000 and C3000.

Unfortunately, everything went downhill (and FAST) after that.

 

[tellico4x4]

I did cave in this year and bought one of the Moultrie Panoramic 150's. Sucker for trinkets I guess.No, it is not silent (as advertised) when the lens moves. However, I thought that it would be a good application on monitoring food plots. Will see....

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

either the imager is so insensitive to far IR wavelengths that the low number of photons striking it not registered correctly, causing an inconsistent activation of its elements and a resulting effective loss in resolution, or the IR filter that moves into place behind the lens is of such low quality that it introduces the blurriness (kind of equivalent to smearing something like vaseline on the lens surface). I'm inclined to think it is probably an imager sensitivity issue, since it seems like all black flash cameras have the problem (to somewhat differing degrees). The problem is that an imager optimized for low intensity IR light is not going to give good color daylight pictures.

I completely agree.

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager).

My old Reconyx RC60s use this system--two lenses.

Moultries I45S uses two lenses. One of the best cameras I've used.

 

[woodchuckc]

either the imager is so insensitive to far IR wavelengths that the low number of photons striking it not registered correctly, causing an inconsistent activation of its elements and a resulting effective loss in resolution, or the IR filter that moves into place behind the lens is of such low quality that it introduces the blurriness (kind of equivalent to smearing something like vaseline on the lens surface). I'm inclined to think it is probably an imager sensitivity issue, since it seems like all black flash cameras have the problem (to somewhat differing degrees). The problem is that an imager optimized for low intensity IR light is not going to give good color daylight pictures.

I completely agree.

What these true "black flash" cameras need is one camera (lens and imager) for daytime pictures and a separate lens and imager optimized for low intensity IR light that are switched between (instead of the light sensor just causing a filter to move into position between the lens and imager).

My old Reconyx RC60s use this system--two lenses.

I didn't know that - I guess that is one reason why the RC60's were so expensive. High quality CCD's (imagers) with high IR sensitivity are much more expensive right now than high sensitivity visible light CCDs (at least in scientific equipment like confocal microscopes, which is the area I am familiar with) so until the next breakthrough in imager technology or unless the demand becomes high enough to mass produce them (not likely as they are a specialty niche item), the price will probably stay too high for us to see them in a lower price point ($200) camera.

 

[bowhunterfanatic]

I just finished setting up my first Covert. Will put it out later today. Hope it treats me well!

 

[Hollar Hunter]

I had 2 of the Moultrie M80 black flash running for about a year now with 0 problems... I got 7 more this year so next year I will know for sure on their durability... The only thing I can say I don't like is in the time lapse trail cam mode it goes from 1 minute to 5 minute intervals. I love that it has plot watcher mode and so many other choices for monitoring.

 

[Tracker56]

Got 1 Covert MP6 in the field for 3 weeks and still 90% battery life and 1 more on the way. Check Amazon or eBay and you can get 'em for around $120 with free shipping. Pics are great and battery life appears to be as advertised. I had to get used to night pics since I upgraded from a strobe flash, I know, I know, I just got indoor plumbing last week too.

Will continue to report back with camera review...

 

[TheLBLman]

. . . . they produced two of the first (and still the best) digital trail-cams ever made, the C1000 and C3000.

Unfortunately, everything went downhill (and FAST) after that.

I still have a working C3000 (at least it worked throughout the 2012 deer season). Compared to today's standards though, battery life sucks and it uses D batteries ---- 4 D Duracells typically last only about a month before dying. And that's with the cam only able to take a pic as often as 1-minute intervals.

Things have gotten remarkably better in terms of what's available in the trail cam market-place compared to just 10 or 12 years ago. But seems most makes of today have very poor quality control compared to what we bought in the 90's and early 2000's.

Also have now obsoleted Non-Tyical film cams which I believe would still work. They were still working after 10 years when I quit using them. They now make excellent "dummy" cams.