Cuddeback IR pictures

  • mark_johnson
    St. Croix River
    Posts: 940
    July 11, 2006 at 8:52 pm #18544

    Yes, it takes a good picture and alot of them on one set of batteries. I have over 700 pics and 75+ 20 second video clips and still running….

    mark_johnson
    St. Croix River
    Posts: 940
    July 11, 2006 at 8:52 pm #459723

    Yes, it takes a good picture and alot of them on one set of batteries. I have over 700 pics and 75+ 20 second video clips and still running….

    rkd-jim
    Fountain City, WI.
    Posts: 1606
    July 11, 2006 at 9:29 pm #18545

    Just curious—-do you want to say what you had to put out for that camera?

    rkd-jim
    Fountain City, WI.
    Posts: 1606
    July 11, 2006 at 9:29 pm #459735

    Just curious—-do you want to say what you had to put out for that camera?

    mark_johnson
    St. Croix River
    Posts: 940
    July 11, 2006 at 9:32 pm #18546

    $450 + $20 for the memory card. But I have been running 3 different 35mm scouting cameras for the last 3 years and I bet that I paid to have atleast 200+ rolls of film developed. That gets expensive.

    mark_johnson
    St. Croix River
    Posts: 940
    July 11, 2006 at 9:32 pm #459739

    $450 + $20 for the memory card. But I have been running 3 different 35mm scouting cameras for the last 3 years and I bet that I paid to have atleast 200+ rolls of film developed. That gets expensive.

    sliderfishn
    Blaine, MN
    Posts: 5432
    July 11, 2006 at 9:42 pm #18547

    Great pictures

    Ron

    robstenger
    Northern Twin Cities, MN
    Posts: 11374
    July 11, 2006 at 9:56 pm #18548

    Swerv is right. Digital (And that is Top of the line he has) Is more money up front, but if you are serious, it is the way to go. In the long run way cheaper than buying rolls and rolls of film and developing them, only to find out that all 15 shots were of a Racoon.

    Digital is expensive but well worth it if you are serious about trail cameras! Not to mention the better pictures, less batteries. Your batteries actually work, etc.

    Real Nice pics Swerv

    robstenger
    Northern Twin Cities, MN
    Posts: 11374
    July 11, 2006 at 9:56 pm #459748

    Swerv is right. Digital (And that is Top of the line he has) Is more money up front, but if you are serious, it is the way to go. In the long run way cheaper than buying rolls and rolls of film and developing them, only to find out that all 15 shots were of a Racoon.

    Digital is expensive but well worth it if you are serious about trail cameras! Not to mention the better pictures, less batteries. Your batteries actually work, etc.

    Real Nice pics Swerv

    rkd-jim
    Fountain City, WI.
    Posts: 1606
    July 12, 2006 at 12:24 am #18549

    The reason I asked is I built my own digital with a Sony S40 for around $200

    rkd-jim
    Fountain City, WI.
    Posts: 1606
    July 12, 2006 at 12:24 am #459795

    The reason I asked is I built my own digital with a Sony S40 for around $200

    muskyman
    Arkansaw, Wisconsin
    Posts: 945
    July 12, 2006 at 3:15 am #18553

    Post deleted per muskyman request.

    muskyman
    Arkansaw, Wisconsin
    Posts: 945
    July 12, 2006 at 3:15 am #459841

    Post deleted per muskyman request.

    mpearson
    Chippewa Falls, WI
    Posts: 4338
    July 12, 2006 at 8:23 pm #18556

    Not anymore anyway!

    mpearson
    Chippewa Falls, WI
    Posts: 4338
    July 12, 2006 at 8:23 pm #460093

    Not anymore anyway!

    freitag
    Osseo, WI
    Posts: 335
    July 14, 2006 at 2:15 pm #18569

    Jim, I assume that camera is digital? If so, would love to see some pictures. Would you be interested in making a couple more. What features do you have on yours?

    freitag
    Osseo, WI
    Posts: 335
    July 14, 2006 at 2:15 pm #460619

    Jim, I assume that camera is digital? If so, would love to see some pictures. Would you be interested in making a couple more. What features do you have on yours?

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.