do you get more pics with a digital vs a 35mm cameras on a per week basis...i know there are a lot of variables such as camera model and location.

There is no comparison in the usefulness and effectiveness of a digital trail camera with a film trail camera.

I would say I average 200 pictures a week on some of my cameras and sometimes I go a month or more between times I am able to check on them, I've had as many as 1,400 pictures on one camera when I went to retrieve the memory card. The largest roll of 35mm film I've seen is 36 exposures. I can't imagine the agony and expense of waiting for the film to get sent off and developed either!

i guess what i mean is if you put a digital camera and a 35mm camera on a tree with the same picture delay, would the digital take more pics?or would they be the same.

I have some good ground with lots of deer but only get about 25 pics/week on a trail. If i put it on a scrape it takes more....but nowhereclose to 200

200 pics in one week would be awesome!

I would say they would take the same amount of pictures up to 36 when the film camera would be done and the digital would still be taking pictures.

There are probably some film cameras that have better sensors than some digital cameras and there are definetly some digital cameras that have better sensors than other digital cameras. Some have better battery life, some have sleep mode or sure shot features that cause them to take fewer pictures, etc..

If you ask about a specific model, we might could give you some more input, but just comparing a generic film camera to a generic digital camera there isn't much of a comparison, the digital is much better.

P.S. - My camera that gets 200 pics a week is setup on a feeder. I would say 25 pictures a week on a trail and maybe 50 pictures a week on a scrape would be pretty good.

thanks for all the info....

I currently have a Deer Cam Non-Typical 35mm, and want to buy a Moultrie I40

I actually put my old 35mm stealth cam on the same tree as my cuddeback last year just to compareand I had a small buck come in (was ata corn pile), the stealth cam got like 3 or 4 pics of him and the cuddeback took over 30, same delay and everything. It seemed like the stealth 35mm only took pics when the deer moved from side to side. So I think the cuddeback took more pics just because it is more sensitive.

You hit the nail right on the head when you said that there are a lot of variables, but the 35mm cannot come close to the digitals when it comes to the number of pictures stored.

So, I guess the issue would be, does a 35mm capture pictures more reliably than a digital? This is where the variables come into play and you need to talk about specific trail cameras.

In my opinion the much larger picture storage capacity of the digitals pretty much rules out the 35mm. The 35mm is limited by the capacity of the roll of film whereas I've had as many as 800 pictures taken by one of my digitals on a 1G memory card.