Hi Antoine,

I am intrigued myself about how well a LoRa-based trail camera might work. I wonder if the 'LoRa' element is a more traditional radio connection? And of course the system still appears to rely on a cellular connection at the base station end. But interesting nonetheless. 

On the radio side, there's also the CuddeLink model: https://www.cuddeback.com/cuddelink

However, I'd be sitting down when you look at the price. 

I've had reasonable success with older model 3G cameras such as the Bolymedia MG983G-30M. From memory, it couldn't transfer video files larger than 10sec in length and it gets a bit glitchy if the batteries are running low. But, it worked well enough for me at the time.  

If you do end up looking closer at the 'LoRa' model, please let us know how it works.

Cheers,

Rob

Hi Antoine,

I had not seen these before, but I'll echo Rob in wondering if the radio links in these are truly what most would consider 'LoRa'.  That tech/protocol generally has very low data transfer rates and would be quite challenged in sending pictures.  That said, what they call it may not be relevant if it works for you. I would just be cautious of thinking it could integrate with other 'LoRa' devices or networks.  Some other web sites that mention this system describe the radio link as 'proprietary'.

Kyler

Antoineede they are a mesh style of camera, one links to the other and then send pictures back to the home unit where you either send them via cellular or you check the sd card. The cover Lora and cuddielink cameras do this but they play hell on battieries.

I had a cuddelink system and got rid of it , the home unit was to hook up to a pc and then from there you could easily wept a scrip to send to txt message or email etc but they scrapped that idea 

I can share some practical perspective on the LoRa camera trap architecture for remote high-relief terrain with poor connectivity.

The core concept — cameras not connected to network, base station at a connectivity point relaying via LoRa — is sound and well-proven. A few things to consider for your specific conditions:

On LoRa range in strong relief — this is where the technology shines and where it disappoints unpredictably. In open terrain, 5-15km gateway range is achievable. In steep valleys or dense canopy, a node in a gully might only reach 200-300m. The solution is careful gateway placement on ridgelines or elevated points, and in complex terrain, one or two dedicated relay nodes at intermediate heights. Test before committing to a layout.

On reliability in heavy rain — LoRa itself is very robust in rain (the signal is largely unaffected by precipitation). The vulnerability is the hardware: connectors, antenna connections, and enclosures. For the gateway, use N-type or SMA connectors with proper weatherproofing, and position the enclosure under a simple rain shield. Cheap LoRa modules with U.FL connectors are more vulnerable — consider a fiberglass enclosed gateway with a proper outdoor antenna.

On the commercial options you mentioned — the Covert LoRa uses a proprietary LoRa implementation that requires their own base station, not standard LoRaWAN. This limits flexibility significantly. If you want to integrate with open platforms like The Things Network or ChirpStack and use standard sensors alongside the cameras, a system built on standard LoRaWAN is more future-proof even if it requires more initial setup.

Happy to discuss specific gateway options or architecture for your terrain.