attack or ambush

mhouck06
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 6:01 am

attack or ambush

Postby mhouck06 » Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:46 am

Looking at the new cuddeback cams. Never owned one, have a lot of friends that were fans of the capture series..
I have been researching them and there seem to be a good amount of negative reviews. Most game cameras have their fair share of negative reviews, so I want to see what anyones personal experience on here is. I have 5 bushnell trophy cams and I like them, just looking for something different now. Its a year round hobby for me so I am always looking for something new.

luvhuntin
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:43 pm
Location: Iowa

Re: attack or ambush

Postby luvhuntin » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:25 am

Here`s a website i use and a link to cuddeback reviews on their site. i will never consider buying one if they won`t allow it to be tested against everyone elses.

http://www.trailcampro.com/cuddebacktrailcameras.aspx

mhouck06
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 6:01 am

Re: attack or ambush

Postby mhouck06 » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:55 pm

wow, thats something else...
I really liked the captures photos. They were always great and you couldnt beat the trigger speed. The captures spoke for themselves, test or no test.
these newer ones, im not so sure and thats odd that they dont want to be compared.

Oakarver
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:15 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: attack or ambush

Postby Oakarver » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:21 pm

I think this issue actually started with another trailcam review site. A site that went out of it's way to put down certain brands..and push others(another example of this is QDMA- one of the guys involved with them is also on the Prostaff of a trailcam company. It was obvious he was pushing that particular brand...and putting down others. When I pointed this out..not only did he not have to apologize or even put that info in his signature..he was defended and *I* got banned). I forget all the details..but if I remember correctly it was because of the way they were doing things that made Cuddeback pursue legal options..or some blame thing. Otherwise I don't see what would prevent a website from posting reviews.

I currently have two Cuddebacks..just posted pics from the one in the Wisconsin trailcam picture thread. Just put the other one up this past weekend so we'll see how that one is working this year.

User avatar
charlie 01
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:44 am
Location: Illinois

Re: attack or ambush

Postby charlie 01 » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:19 pm

I have several of the cuddeback captures that have been just great. Now, I have 2 cuddeback attack IR's. I just recieved and have just started to use them. I'm not a fan of IR's because of their night pics, however, the attack IR's have a choice for video, and that is a nice feature. You get the initial pic, plus a choice of 10,20, or 30 seconds of video. I went with the attacks because I previously had acqired 2 bear proof boxes for the attacks, the ambush will not fit these boxes. I haven't checked and do not know the differences between the two.
I'm asuming they have discontinued the capture. I don't see them offered anymore. Aside from the videos, I still prefer the captures pics and the easy use.
never say never
patience is the companion of wisdom

Oakarver
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:15 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: attack or ambush

Postby Oakarver » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:49 pm

That's the other Cuddeback I have..the Attack IR. Had some problems with it last year but there was an update-firmware for it..never got it updated until this spring when I took it down. I posted some pictures from it last season on here somewhere. Didn't get a chance to put it on video last year- used my StealthCam Prowler HD for that. One thing that is strange is Cuddeback doesn't have sound on the Attack IR. Not sure about their new Ambush. That is enough for me to go with another brand if using it for video. I prefer regular flash for pictures- can't beat color.

User avatar
charlie 01
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:44 am
Location: Illinois

Re: attack or ambush

Postby charlie 01 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:57 pm

I just read that the Ambush has only 10 seconds of video, and uses AA batts. It is smaller in size than the Attack.
never say never
patience is the companion of wisdom

Oakarver
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:15 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: attack or ambush

Postby Oakarver » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:07 pm

That's another thing they need..the ability to hook up a 12v battery to the units. Then they don't have to be so wimpy on the video length.

Rish
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:31 am

Re: attack or ambush

Postby Rish » Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:07 pm

charlie 01 wrote:I just read that the Ambush has only 10 seconds of video, and uses AA batts. It is smaller in size than the Attack.


According to the Cuddeback site, the D cell batteries are better at holding a charge... but who knows, I would think most people have other types of camera as well, and that most of them take AA - I've never found the lithium AAs to be lacking. I stumbled across this review site that has some simple comparisons which I found helpful: http://www.squidoo.com/trail-camera-pictures... mostly for comparing brands to each other really.


Return to Scouting Cameras

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests