Overall they're about what I expected. Flash range looks good, sensitivity/trigger speeds looks good, and photo quality is so-so. For a $200 camera that's super easy to use I'm satisfied and would definitely recommend it to anyone looking for a good trail camera at an affordable price. Although it would probably be a toss-up between the Capture and the Moultrie I40. For an additional few bucks you get the IR capabilities and much better image quality. Although with the Cpature I really appreciated how easy it was to replace the memory card and get out of the woods. I was in and out in probably less than a minute. The I40 is a little bit more troublesome to get to that card, especially if you've got a pair of gloves on. The true test between the two would be the put the Capture IR up against the I40 when it comes out. They're basically same price/same features so it would be a good comparison. Anyways, here's the photos from the Capture. Now I just need some bucks to show up!
I think you hit the nail on the head with this camera. Good trigger speed, just so-so picture quality. It will be interesting to see if the photo quality increased with the Capture IR.... From what you say, the Capture must really be one of the most user friendly cameras on the market. How is set-up in the Moultrie line? I am seriously considering getting a camera for next year. While I would love to just drop the cash for the RC60, the Capture line might be something I would look into. It seems the race, for myself anyways, is between Moultrie and Cuddeback right now.
Thanks for the review Justin. As you said, its about what I had expected as well. I'll probably get one of each of the Captures next year and give them a try. Looks like that big old doe may have a bum leg, she's holding it a little high in both pictures.
