<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Jim, Regarding trail cameras, if I understand correctly, the best resolution you can get is about 5 megapixels, no matter what the makers advertise. They are simply not going to produce high-quality images. It’s not what they were created
for. They were made for information gathering. When folks want high-quality photos, they get into DSLR (or mirrorless) camera trapping. That said, some cameras are definitely better than others, and in a variety of ways. Some take better photos than video,
and vice versa. Some have images that look better but have a slower trigger, and vice versa. Some are easier to mount than others, some are easier to lock with a cable than others. Some are white light (not many!), some are IR low-glow, and some are IR “no-glow.”
There are many differences, so it’s good if you know exactly how you want to use it.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have my favorite brands. I like Meidase a lot. They tend to be very reliable (not missing triggers). The angle of view of most of their models is 70 degrees, though the P90 Pro gets you 120 degrees.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also like the GardePro E5S for image quality, but it doesn’t trigger as fast as some of the others. That one is 70 degree angle of view.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">GardePro makes a model called T5CF that is for very close focus, like within 12 inches or so. But it’s blurry beyond a foot or so, so probably not what you want.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also use Vikeri, which is another 120-degree wide angle. I have had that one take in rain more than once though, not sure why. But it seems to happen with that model more than others I’ve used. I still like it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I tend to think the wider the angle, the more likely your subject is likely to be in focus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you have the means, you may try a couple. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:navy">Jen Vanderhoof</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>