Moultrie M-880 Low Glow Game Camera..
Special Price Moultrie M-880 Low Glow Game Camera By Moultrie
Most helpful customer reviews
191 of 191 people found the following review helpful.
Moultrie M-880 beats Bushnell Trophy HD
By David Humphries
I own several game cameras: Bushnell Trophy 8MP HD, Primos Truth Cam 35, and now a Moultrie M-880. I have been operating the Moultrie for 10 days so far. I've used the Bushnell for about 6 months. I've used the Primos for almost one year. The Moultrie clearly beats the Bushnell in several characteristics. (The Primos does not rank against these two cameras.)
1. In the field, and I know there are lab results that claim differently, but in the field, the Moultrie triggers faster than the Bushnell. This was easily noticeable in the first set of pictures I downloaded. I have had both cameras in the same position monitoring the same section of my driveway (we have a long driveway). The Bushnell often catches the very end of the rear quarter panel as a car is exiting the field of view. The Moultrie catches the front quarter panel as a car enters the field of view. Wow! Then it catches pictures of the entire car as it passes by. I knew that was significant at first glance.
2. The imitation bark housing works surprisingly well. This camera completely dissolves into summer woodlands. Unless someone steps right up to it, they're not going to see it. The Bushnell, in brown, looks like just what it is: a game camera strapped to a tree. You can pick it out from 250 feet.
3. The Moultrie has motion freeze for night pictures. It is an improvement over the Bushnell's night shots, but that's about all can be said. The feature itself is nothing spectacular.
4. The Moultrie costs about $25.00 less.
5. In night photos, the Moultrie reaches further. Moultrie claims 100 feet. I think they're reaching that (see Update below). Bushnell claims 80 feet and I think that is true also.
6. The thumb latches on the Moultrie can be released with gloves on. This is not possible with the Bushnell. However, no other functions on either camera can be operated with gloves on, so this issue may be unimportant. (See Update below)
For the above reasons, the Moultrie I have beats the Bushnell I have.
Cons:
1. The Moultrie uses a double-ring locking hasp which makes it too wide. It requires a lock with a minimum shank length of one inch. This length is predominately available on big, honking padlocks that are overkill for the application, and since they are usually finished with bright zinc, they compromise the very effective bark camouflage. I wish the hasp was smaller. (See Update below)
Other comments:
Daytime picture quality is comparable between the two. No noticeable difference. (Wrong. See Update 9-23-2013 below.)
Given these differences and assuming there are no future reliability problems, my next camera will be definitely be another Moultrie.
UPDATE (9-8-2013):
1. The night distance illumination continues to impress me. I am using the "image freeze" feature for night shots, which is a faster shutter speed and consequently, less light, but my night time photos are well lit as far out as 90 feet (measured). It's probably better than that, but for my camera placements so far, 90 feet is as far as foliage will allow me to see anyway.
2. I really don't like the latches on the Bushnell. I have medium sized fingers, but it's always a struggle to pull the latches on the Bushnell. I have to use my limited fingernails and if the tree is big, which limits the space behind the latches, then it's a real struggle to get my fingers behind the latch.
3. In case anyone is interested, I came up with a solution to the wide double hasp on the Moultrie, which requires a lock with a minimum 1" long shank. I cut the loop end off of a 3/16" steel cable just behind the ferrule. I flattened the ferrule to make sure it could not pass through the hasp on the Moultrie, and I squeezed the cable loop with pliers to make it narrow enough that it will pass through the hasp. I drop the loop through the hasp till it sticks out the bottom (the ferrule stops against the hasp), and then I pass a small padlock through the exposed end of the cable loop and lock it. Done. (See two photos in Customer Images)
The more I use this Moultrie, the more I like it.
UPDATE (9-23-2013):
I swapped the cameras a few days ago. Now the Moultrie is strapped to the same exact location where the Bushnell was and vice versa.
1. The night illumination of the Moultrie is a whole lot better than I even realized. Now I can see that, at 90 feet, the Bushnell has reached its maximum distance and the field of illumination is a flashlight effect, roughly 15 feet wide and falling off rapidly after that. The Moultrie easily reaches 90 feet and floods an area at least 40 feet wide.
2. The daytime pictues of the Bushnell have a lot more image blur. When people pass the Bushnell, their legs are a complete blur, whereas on the Moultrie only their feet are completely blurred.
3. The Moultrie absolutely positively triggers faster. I was jogging past the cameras and the Moultrie caught me when I was about 1/4 of the way into the field of view. The Bushnell did not snap a photo until I was 1/2 way into the field of view. In each case I was passing perpendicular to each camera and the same distance away, give or take 5 feet.
One last UPDATE (12-5-2013):
1. I have noticed that the Bushnell triggers on motion at a greater distance than the Moultrie. This is a mixed blessing. In daytime pictures, it's a plus, hands down, but in night photos the Bushnell will trigger on subjects further away than its night illumination will reach. Even with photo enhancing software I cannot make out what the subject is, but by switching between pictures I can tell that something is there. In contrast, if the Moultrie triggers, I can tell what it is. Regardless, I do wish the Moultrie triggered on subjects further away. It seems to reliably trigger to about 60 feet. (A little hard to pin down, because it is dependent on ambient temperature.)
2. There are two big issues with the Bushnell that I have not mentioned so far because I thought they might be user error, but now I know they are not.
Issue 1: For some reason one or more batteries will pop loose. When this happens the camera shuts down. I have no idea why the batteries pop loose, but I know from the 12 to 15 pictures recorded that the camera worked fine for a while and then suddenly stopped. I have had two instances of this happening. This may have been addressed on new versions of the camera, as I have seen pictures that show the batteries mounted differently.
Issue 2: When we returned home from Thanksgiving travel, the Bushnell had taken over 1500 photos! Normally it takes about 60 per day with us home, so it should have recorded less than 240. This has happened on several more occasions since then and it appears to be getting worse. On one occasion it took over 3300 photos! I can't sort through 3300 photos. At this point, the camera is all but useless. I'm here to buy another Moultrie to replace it.
3. Batteries last longer in the Bushnell, but that stands to reason. The Moultrie puts out more nighttime illumination, so it uses more energy. I just changed the batteries on the Moultrie and the meter showed 40% remaining. I use alkalines. I ran the batteries in the Bushnell till they completely died and got about nine months. Extrapolating the 40% left on the Moultrie, if I ran its batteries until completely dead I guess I would have gotten about six months. For me, the increase in nighttime illumination on the Moultrie is worth the shorter battery life.
After four months of using both cameras in the same locations, for me, the Moultrie is still the clear winner. I'm buying another one.
***************************************************
25 of 25 people found the following review helpful.
Best value out there!
By 1ontheleft
All things considered this camera is a super buy. I'm sure there are better cameras out there if you want to hang $600 on a tree and walk away. The only negative is that with the "freeze" motion thing on some of the detail is lost at night. This camera is well worth the money.
42 of 46 people found the following review helpful.Cheap Home Security
By Gavin Anderson
I can't afford, nor do I want, the infrastructure of a CCTV or security system at my home. Additionally, I rent so the return on long term investment isn't there. I've had three windshields broken in the past 6 months. I installed this product on the roof of the home and the pictures it takes are crystal, even at night the facial recognition is remarkable. I also hunt, so it's a win-win. Highly recommend this product.
Weakness - You have to purchase an SD card separately. You have to download and install software.
