Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

Ideal Cellular Trail Camera

Hey guys just looking for some input on wireless cams on the consumer side. What is your ideal cellular camera? Functions? Cost? Data plans? Deliverable SMS or Server/Mobile App?

And for everyone running different models now, what do you like and what are some things you dislike or would like to see changed or improved upon?
 

jlane

Junior Member
523
0
dunn nc
tower service,at&t sucks, maybe virizon or a choice with the carriers, damn i;m about drunk , hell I don.t know tonite just got in, will look back tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
tower service,at&t sucks, maybe virizon or a choice with the carriers, damn i;m about drunk , hell I don.t know tonite just got in, will look back tomorrow.


Hhahaha...that was great. LOL

To your point, new hardware does allow for multi-carrier use. The issue here is a very limited selection of pre-certified modules that operate on more than one carrier's network. Within that limited selection, cost and functionality become a big deal as far as trail cameras are concerned.
 
I still have a lot to learn before I jump into the cell cameras. What are the benefits of having a website based delivery vs a simple text of the picture? Is one faster or more reliable in areas that have poor cell reception? I know in our area of Ohio the best cell coverage in the last three years has been through Verizon as compared to Sprint and AT&T. I couldn't barely send a text on most parts of the farm with AT&T and Sprint only occasionally. Verizon I can use even in the big holla with only some problems sending pics from there. Other things I have considered with cell cameras is being able to remotely change settings.
 

Milo

Tatonka guide.
8,184
157
Price range 350-400. Port for add on battery. Powersave on searching for any signals if in weak area. Ability to track signal if stolen.
 
I still have a lot to learn before I jump into the cell cameras. What are the benefits of having a website based delivery vs a simple text of the picture? Is one faster or more reliable in areas that have poor cell reception? I know in our area of Ohio the best cell coverage in the last three years has been through Verizon as compared to Sprint and AT&T. I couldn't barely send a text on most parts of the farm with AT&T and Sprint only occasionally. Verizon I can use even in the big holla with only some problems sending pics from there. Other things I have considered with cell cameras is being able to remotely change settings.

The big advantage to a server/mob app delivery is remote access to the camera. If done correctly such that you have the ability to monitor battery life, upgrade FW, change settings on the camera, etc as you had mentioned. On the service side there is not much a trail camera manufacture can do from a hardware standpoint. The FCC has regulations on what strength antennas can be used whether it be internal, like your phone, or external like most of todays wireless cameras. Without the FCC's approval no product would pass the certification process. Something that you will see in the future due to new wireless modules is the ability to buy one product (wireless camera) and have the ability to use multiple carriers. So for instance if you have a Verizon camera that works on one side of your property but on the other side or different property AT&T is better you will not have to buy an new AT&T certified camera, you'll be able to simple move the camera and change activation. This will still require a new data plan and cancellation of the old but allows the end user some flexibility and worry less if they have coverage or not. I'm not certain if any current wireless cams have that ability but I do know the modules are now available, so I wouldn't doubt seeing that in the short future.
 
Price range 350-400. Port for add on battery. Powersave on searching for any signals if in weak area. Ability to track signal if stolen.

Those are great points of interest Milo!! The added cost definetly comes from the wireless modules and antenna...for sake of simple math say a normal cam costs $50 to manufacture, the added wireless module is approx. $70 and another $10 for the antenna putting the COGS at $130 add retail markup and your at roughly $500. Those are exact numbers but you get the idea. I'd say nearly all of today's wireless cameras have the ability to run off external batteries and/or solar panels because they are essential for battery life due to exact what you stated. Connecting to the network and searching for signal kills batteries at a rapid pace. I have no idea if any current wireless cameras have the ability to enter a power saving mode when searching for signal. Maybe someone could advise us here?? Also, I do know a lot of the newer modules and chipsets do have GPS ability. Really a cool feature if you have the ability to monitor the camera and it's location through a mobile application.
 
Better pic resolution, faster writing to card so next pic can be taken quicker is what I wanted when I had my mms cams.

Spot on!! IMO most companies are really compressing there photos to save on data, which in the end helps the consumer. There is a new company from here in Ohio, Trail Lync, that allows the user to select how far the images are compressed. The software itself and how well it's written, along with the processor also plays a part in that. The recovery time is definetly a downside to wireless cameras. The camera has to locally write and then send the data to the network before it can rearm for another pic. As connection speeds increase due to coverage and better modules things will begin to get better on this front.
 
Really appreciate the conversation guys. I'm far from an expert on this, I'm just spitting out what we've learned over the past couple years while working on a few projects we decided to put on the shelf. Any perspective we can gain from all of you is greatly appreciated!
 

Quantum673

Black Hat Cajun
Supporting Member
Problem with doing a cellular cam now is that technology will be changing soon. Most carriers are testing 5g now. This will drastically change the connection rates as well as upload speeds. The sooner they transition to 5g the sooner 3g will phase out. When that happens and everyone is using LTE multiple carrier modules will become more common. IMO
 
Problem with doing a cellular cam now is that technology will be changing soon. Most carriers are testing 5g now. This will drastically change the connection rates as well as upload speeds. The sooner they transition to 5g the sooner 3g will phase out. When that happens and everyone is using LTE multiple carrier modules will become more common. IMO

Not arguing there! Iot and dos/small cell fiber will be the way of the future IMO. Technology will forever be changing in the mobile world, I'd argue the products typically won't outlast the tech. While carriers are testing 5g network equipment, the hunting industry is typically 3-5 years behind the bell curve, 4G/LTE isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Any company putting out 3G products now is way behind, and I would argue they're simply putting products to put them out...not to solve a problem or help consumers. 3G may or may not start to be phased out, Verizon and AT&T will be the first to start that process as all the other carriers are still playing catch up with their rural infrastructure. My brother and I managed a few projects for Sprint during previous employment. In 2015 they were still building 2.5ghtz quad band sites throughout the west, Denver market, MT market, Portland, etc...actually still in the design phase. I may be incorrect on this but I believe Verizon will not even certify any 3G devices moving forward? It seems as though most carriers are focusing on their major urban markets, which makes total sense. Again, just my opinions here.
 

Quantum673

Black Hat Cajun
Supporting Member
I do not disagree with any of that. Small cell is definitely the way of the future along with miliwave technology. Most carriers just decommissioned 2g not long ago so 3g will be around a few years yet. You are right that you can never keep up with the tech. It moves way to fast. Almost 20 years in the cell industry myself so far and it seems it is always changing.
 

giles

Cull buck specialist
Supporting Member
My future outlook on this see's the market going towards a live feed. Something like a security camera. I get a notification on my phone about movement, I click on it and it shows me a live feed. And at any give time I can pull up cam 1-12 and look at them on a split screen.

All ran by solar power.
 

angelzd28

Junior Member
Good points Dave. Something similar that could save on battery life is sending the pics all at one time via a timed turn on of the wireless device. Camera takes pics all day just like now and at a set time or times turns on and sends all the pics to your phone as one file. This function is used on our survival radios a with the GPS portion and text msg's, it really saves battery life, as opposed to every time a pic is taken sending that info which tends to drain battery life. the only problem is guys want up to date info at all times. This also may conserve the life of the unit, less time turned on means less chance of burning out the system. I could be way off base on this, just my 2 cents tho.
 
Very interesting conversation! My guess is start up companies like Snyper are using the old outdated versions of the hardware and software to keep prices cheap? That is probably most people's hang-up on stepping into the cell cam world is cost. Even though that is a large part of my consideration, it is reliability and actually being able to get pics sent. I don't want to waste even $200 on one if it rarely would send me an image. Not worth the headaches and aggrivation.
 
Speaking for myself, but how about system that doesn't rely on cell coverage or at least not for every camera. Cuddeback has a new system out called Cuddelink that I like the idea of. With it the pictures can be fed from camera to camera back to one "home" camera. Then that camera can either have a card pull or send all pictures on a cell. Would work well for places that have spotty cell coverage. You could link all of the cameras back to the cabin where you have one of the systems to boost cell coverage.
 

Milo

Tatonka guide.
8,184
157
As a start up company, I would personally rather see you so what your doing, or what everyone is not. Not sure how much R&D money you have but I'd like to see you build your brand more if your considering creating one. I don't know your finances so the comment is tongue and cheek somewhat.
 
My future outlook on this see's the market going towards a live feed. Something like a security camera. I get a notification on my phone about movement, I click on it and it shows me a live feed. And at any give time I can pull up cam 1-12 and look at them on a split screen.

All ran by solar power.

Live feed is right around the corner, it's here now but the cost of the modules and battery support are the two biggest issues keeping it from main stream, IMO. But I guess you did mention solar power. Has anyone ran the spypoint wireless cam with the attached solar panel containing a power pack?