Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon fails the brand promise of trustworthiness (for me)

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:08:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
promise to me.

I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
"Trustworthiness and Creativity".

For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this Nikon
digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.

But the reviewers failed me also (although I don't blame them for missing
what only turns out to be an obvious flaw after a year or so of use).

For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
inclination to purchase more.

Sure, it's still cheaper to fund Nikon's battery department than to buy a
Canon or otherwise reliable camera - but I am so disgusted with the
performance of these proprietary camera batteries that emotionally I feel
Nikon has failed me (they get 50 points out of 100 on their brand promise).

Why should I fund the failed Nikon battery development department.

Which brings me to this post.
Sure, I can gripe and moan but that doesn't tell me anything.
What I would like to know is AM I THE ONLY ONE?

Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
promise of reliability? Or is it just me?
July 2, 2005 9:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:08:50 GMT, Mahesh Singh <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
>promise to me.
>
>I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
>"Trustworthiness and Creativity".
>
>For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this Nikon
>digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
>bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.
>
>But the reviewers failed me also (although I don't blame them for missing
>what only turns out to be an obvious flaw after a year or so of use).
>
>For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
>digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
>batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
>inclination to purchase more.
>
>Sure, it's still cheaper to fund Nikon's battery department than to buy a
>Canon or otherwise reliable camera - but I am so disgusted with the
>performance of these proprietary camera batteries that emotionally I feel
>Nikon has failed me (they get 50 points out of 100 on their brand promise).
>
>Why should I fund the failed Nikon battery development department.
>
>Which brings me to this post.
>Sure, I can gripe and moan but that doesn't tell me anything.
>What I would like to know is AM I THE ONLY ONE?
>
>Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
>promise of reliability? Or is it just me?

Why pick on Nikon? The batterys in my Minolta only last 20 mins... or less!
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2005/7/2 1:08 PM, "Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
> promise to me.
>
> I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
> "Trustworthiness and Creativity".
>
> For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this Nikon
> digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
> bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.
....

> For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
> digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
> batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
> inclination to purchase more.
>
....
>
> Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
> promise of reliability? Or is it just me?


You say fifteen or twenty minutes, How many pictures are you taking in that
time? Are you using the flash?

A number P&S camera have battery life of about 100 pictures or less. My
first digital, a Nikon 880 had gave me typically 75 to 80. When I was
looking for a DSLR, I paid attention to the battery life and found good
recommendations =for the D70. When I bought one, I found that the battery
life is astonishingly long compared to my 880. I now get 750 to 1000
pictures on one battery charge.

It seems to me that you did insufficient research before making your
purchase. What did Nikon's technical specs say about battery life? Did you
even look? If this is so important to you, then you should have done the
research.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So, what does Nikon support have to say about this? They say the
battery will last approximately 100 minutes and you say it's under 30,
right? Sounds to me like a defect, so what have they told you?

Kitt
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mahesh Singh wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:25:31 -0400, Scott Schuckert wrote:
>
> > There's also the possibility that the camera is defective in some way.
> > Did it ever work properly, and did you buy it new or used?
>
> I bought it new. March of 2003. It worked well (with respect to the
> batteries) only during the first few months. Before the warranty was out, I
> had seriously considered sending it back but I never got around to it,



So the fact that you were too tired or too busy to take advantage of
the warranty makes Nikon a bad company? The trust factor works both
ways. Nikon trusts that you'll give them the opportunity to make it
right before you start to bad mouth them in a worldwide forum such as
this. That pretty much ends the conversation for me. Every
manufacturer offers a warranty for the simple reason that 100%
perfection is impossible, no matter what the company name or location.
You never gave them a chance to satisfy you. This is all assuming, of
course, that there is anything wrong with the camera or batteries in
the first place. As someone else pointed out, constant flash use,
excessive auto focus and LCD use will alter battery life estimates as
well as age and quality of the batteries you're using. You chose to be
unhappy and that would have happened no matter who the manufacturer
was. I suggest you still may want to contact Nikon to find out if they
can help, since I've read many accounts of them doing reduced cost or
free repairs, even after warranty if the grievance is legitimate. On
the other hand, there is little they can do to repair belated buyers
remorse.



> preferring not to use the camera. Over time, the warranty expired and now
> I'm mad at myself for purchasing a Nikon in the first place based on their
> promise of trustworthiness and creativity.
>
> That's why I ask if it's just my situation or if it's universal that the
> Nikon promise of trustworthiness failed. Their promise of creativity was
> fulfilled (in my opinion) so they only get great marks on half the
> equation. They get dismal marks on the other half (the camera is never
> there when I need it).
>
> The contrast is so striking between the two promises of Nikon that it makes
> me wonder how they stay in business. That's why I ask you for more
> information.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:19:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6fd8uh7ukxi6$.vz56qkk36ni9$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
> promise to me.
>
> I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
> "Trustworthiness and Creativity".
>
> For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this Nikon
> digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
> bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.
>
> But the reviewers failed me also (although I don't blame them for missing
> what only turns out to be an obvious flaw after a year or so of use).
>
> For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
> digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
> batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
> inclination to purchase more.
>
> Sure, it's still cheaper to fund Nikon's battery department than to buy a
> Canon or otherwise reliable camera - but I am so disgusted with the
> performance of these proprietary camera batteries that emotionally I feel
> Nikon has failed me (they get 50 points out of 100 on their brand promise).
>
> Why should I fund the failed Nikon battery development department.
>
> Which brings me to this post.
> Sure, I can gripe and moan but that doesn't tell me anything.
> What I would like to know is AM I THE ONLY ONE?
>
> Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
> promise of reliability? Or is it just me?

It's you.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:19:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On this date, E. Mott extended this wisdom for the
consideration of other readers...

>> Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted
>> with the broken Nikon promise of reliability? Or is
it
>> just me?
>
> It's you.

I'm afraid that it's not just the OP that's discusted
with Nikon...

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:19:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:14:54 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:

> I'm afraid that it's not just the OP that's discusted
> with Nikon...

True. It's not as if only one person is allowed to be unfairly
critical of Nikon or other manufacturers.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:25:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mahesh Singh wrote:
> I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their
> brand promise to me.
[]
> For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
> digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
> batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
> inclination to purchase more.

The CP5000 is a rather old camera. What age were the batteries you
bought? What is the manufacturing date on them? Be aware that Li-ion
batteries have a life of about 3 years - used or not - so any batteries
supplied with the camera from new are now at or past their end of life
point.

You may be blaming Nikon unfairly. I have found the same batteries
(EN-EL1) completely reliable in my Nikon 5700, both Nikon brand and 3rd
party Hahnel, with perhaps 200 or more shots per charge.

David
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:25:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <f6Axe.61029$G8.7824@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
Taylor
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

> > For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
> > digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
> > batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
> > inclination to purchase more.

There's also the possibility that the camera is defective in some way.
Did it ever work properly, and did you buy it new or used? I use the
same battery in a CoolPix 995, and the life is so good I keep
forgetting I have to charge them occasionally. The CP 5000 (the very
next model) shouldn't draw THAT much more power.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:08:50 GMT, Mahesh Singh
<Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
>promise to me.
>
>I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
>"Trustworthiness and Creativity".
>
>For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this Nikon
>digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
>bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.
>
>But the reviewers failed me also (although I don't blame them for missing
>what only turns out to be an obvious flaw after a year or so of use).
>
>For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
>digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
>batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
>inclination to purchase more.
>
>Sure, it's still cheaper to fund Nikon's battery department than to buy a
>Canon or otherwise reliable camera - but I am so disgusted with the
>performance of these proprietary camera batteries that emotionally I feel
>Nikon has failed me (they get 50 points out of 100 on their brand promise).
>
>Why should I fund the failed Nikon battery development department.
>
>Which brings me to this post.
>Sure, I can gripe and moan but that doesn't tell me anything.
>What I would like to know is AM I THE ONLY ONE?
>
>Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
>promise of reliability? Or is it just me?

How are you using the camera? Is it set up for fully automatic
operation?

I'm not familiar with the CP5000, but I have two CP4500s. Their
default configuration places them in full automatic operation. That
means that as you are moving around the focusing system is continually
moving the lens. That type of operation is bound to run down the
battery in jig time, even if you've never taken a single picture!

I've set my CP4500s up so that they focus only when I half-press the
shutter release button.

Nikons are good enough for me. I liked my first CP4500 so well I went
out and bought another for backup. Now, I have a D70 and keep one
CP4500 for backup. My wife is using the other 4500.

There may be better cameras out there (I *almost* bought a Canon 20D
instead of the D70) but, like I said, Nikons are good enough to suit
me just fine.

Keep looking. You'll find a camera that suits your needs.

Regards,

Orrin
July 2, 2005 9:50:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Can't really coment on your own situation but the battery in my new Coolpix
3700 has been faultless. Don't suppose you are doing anything unusual with
the camera, are you?

Paul

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
July 2, 2005 10:28:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6fd8uh7ukxi6$.vz56qkk36ni9$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
> promise to me.
>
> I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
> "Trustworthiness and Creativity".
>
> For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
> digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
> batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
> inclination to purchase more.
>
We use one in the store to shoot passports, and we go days before changing
batteries.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 10:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
> On this date, E. Mott extended this wisdom for the
> consideration of other readers...
>
>>> Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted
>>> with the broken Nikon promise of reliability? Or is it
>>> just me?
>>
>> It's you.
>
> I'm afraid that it's not just the OP that's discusted
> with Nikon...

But did a Canon, Minolta or Olympus outfit work any better for you?

David
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 10:48:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6fd8uh7ukxi6$.vz56qkk36ni9$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
> promise to me.
>
> I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
> "Trustworthiness and Creativity".
>
> For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this
> Nikon
> digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
> bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.
>
> But the reviewers failed me also (although I don't blame them for missing
> what only turns out to be an obvious flaw after a year or so of use).
>
> For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
> digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
> batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
> inclination to purchase more.
>
> Sure, it's still cheaper to fund Nikon's battery department than to buy a
> Canon or otherwise reliable camera - but I am so disgusted with the
> performance of these proprietary camera batteries that emotionally I feel
> Nikon has failed me (they get 50 points out of 100 on their brand
> promise).
>
> Why should I fund the failed Nikon battery development department.

I question whether Nikon actually has a "battery development department" or
manufactures their own batteries. Li Ion batteries are an established
technology and I would think the sensible thing for Nikon (and other camera
manufacturers) to do would be to have batteries made for them by some
company that does that. Granted that the batteries are specifically in a
Nikon size, I would still think the logical thing for Nikon to do would be
to give some good battery maker(s) the necessary specs and let them produce
the batteries.


>
> Which brings me to this post.
> Sure, I can gripe and moan but that doesn't tell me anything.
> What I would like to know is AM I THE ONLY ONE?
>
> Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
> promise of reliability? Or is it just me?

Apparently it is only the short battery life you've experienced which causes
you to complain of "the broken Nikon promise of reliability." That seems
unreasonable. If I understand you correctly, you are perfectly happy with
everything else about the camera, nothing has actually failed on it in the
years you've had it, and it doesn't sound as if you've ever had the camera
checked to see whether there's any problem which would cause the batteries
to run down prematurely.

I doubt whether there's anything wrong with the batteries themselves,
especially since you have two of 'em and evidently get the same result from
both. I recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 8700 which takes the same EN-EL1
size battery, and I don't have anything remotely like the problem with
battery life that you're complaining about.

According to the DPReview page here,
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5000/page13.asp
the Nikon 5000 had a battery life of 2 hours 32 minutes using their test
method, which is described. That is not much different from the 2 hrs 45 min
listed for my 8700. It is certainly nowhere near the 15 to 20 minutes that
you're complaining about. So something seems to be wrong there. Either the
camera is doing something wrong, or you are.

N.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 10:48:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:50:32 GMT, Pb wrote:

> Can't really coment on your own situation but the battery in my new Coolpix
> 3700 has been faultless. Don't suppose you are doing anything unusual with
> the camera, are you?

I thank you for your information. What you say is that Nikon fulfilled the
brand promise expectation you had for your Coolpix 3700. However, I hope I
don't come across too strong when I say that, in my humble opinion, the two
cameras (nor batteries) don't compare directly considering the
brand-promise expectations I had.

For one, the brand-promise expectation of a thousand-dollar camera pales in
comparison to that same level of "trustiworthiness" expected for a
three-hundred-dollar camera in my mind. Basically, I expected more of a
thousand-dollar camera than I received (far more in the trustworthiness
scale and more than I asked for on the creativity scale).

For the other, the Nikon EN-EL5 Lithium-Ion & Nikon EN-EL1 Lithium-Ion
batteries are different. I suspect the chargers and the load are different
also. Here, creativity is not a virtue - trustiworthiness is the ONLY
criterion for a battery! In your Nikon 3700, the trustiworthiness was
fulfilled - in my Nikon Coolpix 5000, the battery was NEVER trustworthy. At
most, it lasted a day of shooting. Never more. And much less only three
months after I bought both batteries.

Nonetheless, it is heartening (for Nikon anyway :)  to hear that not all
their cameras are so absolutely untrustworthy - just this one is (and maybe
just for me (and perhaps a few thousand other disenchanged new Nikon
owners).

Thank you very much for the Coolpix 3700 battery life information. If I
would ever buy another Nikon (probably not though), I'd NEVER spend a
thousand dollars ASSUMING the brand promise would be fulfilled. What you
are telling me is that I could have gotten the TRUSTWORTHY & CREATIVE
features out of a camera that was 1/2 the cost of the one I unfortunately
own. (That assumes the 3700 allows the phenominal creativity that Nikon
offers in the CP5000).

I appreciate your time and assistance! Thank you.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:05:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:08:29 -0400, Bob wrote:

>>Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
>>promise of reliability? Or is it just me?
>
> Why pick on Nikon? The batterys in my Minolta only last 20 mins... or less!

This is a good point.

I "pick on" Nikon only because I paid a thousand dollars for what I THOUGHT
was a premium brand which I thought fulfilled its often-stated promise of
TRUSTWORTHINESS and creativity.

I got more than enough creativity out of my Nikon Coolpix 5000.
But I got little to zero trustworthiness.
I can't even trust to take this camera out on a day trip, let alone a
full-fledged vacation for two (me and my camera).

Nikon should be ashamed for selling this camera.
I should be even MORE ASHAMED for believing the brand promise (fool me once
....).

If I had paid a thousand dollars for Minolta's brand promise of "the
essentials of imaging", and if I didn't get those essentials, for a
thousand-dollar set of expectations, I'd "pick on" Minolta too. :) 
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:05:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1chbgvgole8lc$.15xqty3d78naz$.dlg@40tude.net>, Mahesh Singh
<Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I got more than enough creativity out of my Nikon Coolpix 5000.
> But I got little to zero trustworthiness.
> I can't even trust to take this camera out on a day trip, let alone a
> full-fledged vacation for two (me and my camera).

Looking over your various posts, it appears that your problem with the
batteries began "after a year or so of use"

I don't know what your use cycle is; do you shoot dozens of pictures a
day, or hundreds? Here are some facts for you:

1. Digital cameras draw a LOT of power. That's why most manufacturers
uses rechargeable rather than throwaway batteries.

2. Rechargeable batteries have a finite lifespan. With modern high
capacity batteries, this can be as little as a 2-3 hundred
charge-discharge cycles.

3. REGARDLESS of brand, you should count on swapping batteries at least
once in a busy day of shooting, and replacing the batteries every
couple of years.

Check Nikon's specs for the number of expected exposures per charge,
and how this was determined (percentage of shots with flash, etc.) Get
a NEW battery, charge and maintain it according to instructions, and
compare your results to the specification. If your results are more
than, say, 30% less than the spec, and the camera checks out OK at a
nikon authorized service station, THEN you can bitch about the brands'
"untrustworthiness."
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:05:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:05:52 GMT, Mahesh Singh wrote:

> I "pick on" Nikon only because I paid a thousand dollars for what I
> THOUGHT was a premium brand which I thought fulfilled its often-stated
> promise of TRUSTWORTHINESS and creativity.
>
> I got more than enough creativity out of my Nikon Coolpix 5000.
> But I got little to zero trustworthiness.
> I can't even trust to take this camera out on a day trip, let alone a
> full-fledged vacation for two (me and my camera).
>
> Nikon should be ashamed for selling this camera.
> I should be even MORE ASHAMED for believing the brand promise
> (fool me once
> ...).

I thought I answered a similar message concerning Nikon's CP5000
recently but I can't find any trace of it, so I may have deleted it.
In any case, there may not be anything wrong with your camera. The
supplied charger isn't very "smart", and can apparently damage
batteries if you are in habit of recharging them too soon. It's
probably best (with the CP5000) to only recharge the battery when
it's depleted or very low. Otherwise the battery may frequently end
up being overcharged, shortening its life.

There are two ways to deal with this. One is to have two
batteries, so that even though you might sometimes start taking
pictures with a battery that might be fairly low, you'll always have
at least one fully charged battery when you start taking pictures.
The second way would be to find an aftermarket "smart" charger, that
can more safely charge your batteries, even when they're only
partially discharged. If you get a new battery for the CP5000, you
should immediately notice greater battery life, and the challenge
will then be trying to recharge it properly, so that its lifetime
will be measured in years rather than months.

Here's Phil Askey's comment from dpreview, and his (probably)
misguided conclusion:


> One thing to note about Nikon's battery charger is that it's not "smart" like
> Lithium-Ion chargers from other manufacturers. That is it does not sense the
> charge state of the battery and instead runs through the full charge time.
> Although I'm sure this does the battery no harm what it does mean is that
> it's difficult to 'top up' a battery which isn't fully flat.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5000/page4.asp
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:54:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <f6Axe.61029$G8.7824@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
> Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon
>>> CP5000 digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes
>>> before the batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and
>>> absolutely no inclination to purchase more.
>
> There's also the possibility that the camera is defective in some way.
> Did it ever work properly, and did you buy it new or used? I use the
> same battery in a CoolPix 995, and the life is so good I keep
> forgetting I have to charge them occasionally. The CP 5000 (the very
> next model) shouldn't draw THAT much more power.

Scott, please be a little more careful in your attribution. It wasn't me
who complained of lack of trustworthiness but: "Mahesh Singh"
<Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net>.

I do agree with you that his camera may be or have become defective, but
as far as I can see he hasn't yet answered the question about the date of
manufacture of the batteries. The 5000 came out in 2002, and if there was
systematic battery life problem I suspect we would have heard about it by
now.

Thanks,
David
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:54:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <8iCxe.61142$G8.29535@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
Taylor
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

> Scott, please be a little more careful in your attribution. It wasn't me
> who complained of lack of trustworthiness but: "Mahesh Singh"
> <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net>.

Sorry about that; just highlighted and hit reply, didn't notice the
attribution was not as intended. Hope your reputation will recover.
<GRIN>
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:24:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:25:31 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Mahesh Singh wrote:
>> I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their
>> brand promise to me.

> The CP5000 is a rather old camera. What age were the batteries you
> bought?

My original Nikon EN-EL1 battery lasted about six months before it became
unreliable. The new (apparently) off-brand EN-EL1 battery lasted even less
before I couldn't trust the Nikon camera to be there when I needed it to be
there for me. I have no desire to further fund the failed Nikon battery
development team's design efforts feeding this camera failed batteries. I
feel Nikon's engineers should have known better if they were to promise
"trustworthiness". They *knew* this combination couldn't work (either that
or I struck out twice on otherwise perfectly good batteries).

> What is the manufacturing date on them?
I'm looking at both batteries as we speak. One says "Nikon EN-EL1 Lithium
Ion Battery Pack 7.4V 680mAh Nikon Corp. Made in Japan" and it has Japanese
characters but nothing else on it (on the other side is the warning
"Caution Do not incinerate, disasssemble, short. Use designated charger
only." and then the stylized characters "ST" and punched into the label
below the snake-chasing Li-ion symbol are the letters ":A:1". The other
battery pack has the text worn smooth but I can barely make out LENWAR as
the manufacturer and "29" stamped on the black plastic case.

From that, can we definitively tell the manufacturing date?

> You may be blaming Nikon unfairly. I have found the same batteries
> (EN-EL1) completely reliable in my Nikon 5700, both Nikon brand and 3rd
> party Hahnel, with perhaps 200 or more shots per charge.

Do you have the same Nikon charger?

Mine says Nikon MH-53 Lithium Ion Battery Charger, input 100-240V, 50/60Hz,
0.15A to 0.1A 13-18VA ... Output 8.4V 0.6A, Nikon Corp, Made in China,
KGComp, 02H24 (which probably means it was made in the 24th week of 2002).

I understand this charger has no "smarts" to it (again, I should fault
Nikon for putting a dumb charger in a thousand-dollar battery - but I
really fault myself for trusting in Nikon's oft-stated promise of
"trustworthiness and creativity".

Basically, for a company who promises trustworthiness, the Coolpix
designers obviously made a very serious mistake in their choice of camera
components - so serious that they lost a customer (probably for life). Now,
if I had never expected reliability, then I wouldn't have paid so much for
this trustworthiness that I didn't receive and then I wouldn't have been so
down on Nikon. I think our Minolta friend, who paid a third of what I paid
for his camera, is in that boat.

This thread really isn't about shelf life. It's about whether or not the
wrong batteries are in the Nikon cameras such that the trustworthiness
promise of Nikon is a false hope.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:24:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1ig6uscgmi5w4$.1s3h40xv6lpox$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:25:31 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Mahesh Singh wrote:
>>> I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their
>>> brand promise to me.
>
>> The CP5000 is a rather old camera. What age were the batteries you
>> bought?
>
> My original Nikon EN-EL1 battery lasted about six months before it became
> unreliable. The new (apparently) off-brand EN-EL1 battery lasted even less
> before I couldn't trust the Nikon camera to be there when I needed it to
> be
> there for me. I have no desire to further fund the failed Nikon battery
> development team's design efforts feeding this camera failed batteries. I
> feel Nikon's engineers should have known better if they were to promise
> "trustworthiness". They *knew* this combination couldn't work (either that
> or I struck out twice on otherwise perfectly good batteries).
>
>> What is the manufacturing date on them?
> I'm looking at both batteries as we speak. One says "Nikon EN-EL1 Lithium
> Ion Battery Pack 7.4V 680mAh Nikon Corp. Made in Japan" and it has
> Japanese
> characters but nothing else on it (on the other side is the warning
> "Caution Do not incinerate, disasssemble, short. Use designated charger
> only." and then the stylized characters "ST" and punched into the label
> below the snake-chasing Li-ion symbol are the letters ":A:1". The other
> battery pack has the text worn smooth but I can barely make out LENWAR as
> the manufacturer and "29" stamped on the black plastic case.
>
> From that, can we definitively tell the manufacturing date?
>
>> You may be blaming Nikon unfairly. I have found the same batteries
>> (EN-EL1) completely reliable in my Nikon 5700, both Nikon brand and 3rd
>> party Hahnel, with perhaps 200 or more shots per charge.
>
> Do you have the same Nikon charger?
>
> Mine says Nikon MH-53 Lithium Ion Battery Charger, input 100-240V,
> 50/60Hz,
> 0.15A to 0.1A 13-18VA ... Output 8.4V 0.6A, Nikon Corp, Made in China,
> KGComp, 02H24 (which probably means it was made in the 24th week of 2002).
>
> I understand this charger has no "smarts" to it (again, I should fault
> Nikon for putting a dumb charger in a thousand-dollar battery - but I
> really fault myself for trusting in Nikon's oft-stated promise of
> "trustworthiness and creativity".

So since you like everything else about the camera, why not try a couple of
new batteries and a different, smart charger? EN-EL1 batteries are very
inexpensive now in no-name or substitute brands, on eBay as well as some
online stores. I bought a spare EN-EL1 for my 8700 for $12.99 at Buy.com
(and free shipping with orders totaling $25 or more).


>
> Basically, for a company who promises trustworthiness, the Coolpix
> designers obviously made a very serious mistake in their choice of camera
> components - so serious that they lost a customer (probably for life).
> Now,
> if I had never expected reliability, then I wouldn't have paid so much for
> this trustworthiness that I didn't receive and then I wouldn't have been
> so
> down on Nikon. I think our Minolta friend, who paid a third of what I paid
> for his camera, is in that boat.
>
> This thread really isn't about shelf life. It's about whether or not the
> wrong batteries are in the Nikon cameras such that the trustworthiness
> promise of Nikon is a false hope.

Technology marches on. Battery life has *always* been something of an issue
with digital cameras, though it doesn't seem to me to be so much of a
problem with today's cameras. But batteries continue to improve, chargers
have improved, and cameras are less battery-hungry than they were a few
years ago. What you bought two or three years ago just isn't as advanced as
what you can buy today, and no doubt in another year or two they will be
better still.

N.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:29:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:25:31 -0400, Scott Schuckert wrote:

> There's also the possibility that the camera is defective in some way.
> Did it ever work properly, and did you buy it new or used?

I bought it new. March of 2003. It worked well (with respect to the
batteries) only during the first few months. Before the warranty was out, I
had seriously considered sending it back but I never got around to it,
preferring not to use the camera. Over time, the warranty expired and now
I'm mad at myself for purchasing a Nikon in the first place based on their
promise of trustworthiness and creativity.

That's why I ask if it's just my situation or if it's universal that the
Nikon promise of trustworthiness failed. Their promise of creativity was
fulfilled (in my opinion) so they only get great marks on half the
equation. They get dismal marks on the other half (the camera is never
there when I need it).

The contrast is so striking between the two promises of Nikon that it makes
me wonder how they stay in business. That's why I ask you for more
information.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:43:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nostrobino wrote:
> I doubt that the battery discharges in the charger, but I don't know for
> sure. My guess is still that you've just cooked your batteries to death (or
> near death) by leaving them on trickle charge for extended periods.

I think it's clear most of us don't really know what is going on at
all.
Everyone is just guessing. Nobody has any facts.

For example, since the dpreview site implies the nikon cp5000 battery
charger turns off after a fixed time period, that would indicate that
no matter how long you keep the batteries in the charger, they can not
overcharge. There is no "boiling off of electrolyte" possible under
this scenario. That's a red herring.

The only damage you'd do to the batteries by keeping them in the nikon
charger that is now turned off after the first half day is that the
batteries will self discharge over time.

It's a very stupid design by nikon but it won't hurt the batteries.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:02:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What you
> are telling me is that I could have gotten the TRUSTWORTHY & CREATIVE
> features out of a camera that was 1/2 the cost of the one I unfortunately
> own. (That assumes the 3700 allows the phenominal creativity that Nikon
> offers in the CP5000).
>
> I appreciate your time and assistance! Thank you.

No, what everybody is telling you is that you should have taken advantage of
the warranty that was offered to you by Nikon. IMHO this problem is in no
way Nikon's fault. If I buy a car with a squeaky wheel, never take it in
for service and never inform the dealer of the problem and the wheel falls
off who's fault is it?

You can't give a manufacturer a black mark and then spread the word when you
never gave them a chance to correct the problem. No manufacturer is
perfect. That's why they give you a warranty. So they can prove their
TRUST when something happens. They don't want to lose you as a customer,
but you obviously don't want to take the time to be a responsible customer.
It goes both ways. They can't read your mind, and the camera doesn't send
an automatic signal to them when there's a problem.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:06:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:43:26 -0400, Scott Schuckert wrote:

Hi Scott,
> Your problem with the batteries began "after a year or so of use"

Well. I should be more scientific about this but I'm working from memory. I
don't remember being disgusted with the battery life in the beginning but I
do remember considering returning the thousand-dollar Nikon camera to the
store I bought it in before the year was up. So, I'd say it was definately
less than a year but more than a couple of months. Sorry for not having
more details than that but I *do* remember the second battery failed *much*
sooner.


> I don't know what your use cycle is; do you shoot dozens of pictures a
> day, or hundreds? Here are some facts for you:

I don't shoot every day. Maybe once a week I take five or ten snapshots at
a time. Once every month (or so), I take twenty or thirty shots plus a few
videos. Once a year (or so), I go on vacation and then the camera is
expected to be continuously trustworthy for a two-week period (recharging
the batteries, of course). A battery should last at least a half day during
vacation, in my opinion. Preferably a day so I can put one battery on the
charger and one in the camera. Only in the first couple of months of
ownership would I have trusted this Nikon camera to be a vacation-worthy
camera. Certainly, before the warranty expired, I already knew I could not
trust this thousand-dollar camera on any vacation of mine.

> 1. Digital cameras draw a LOT of power. That's why most manufacturers
> uses rechargeable rather than throwaway batteries.

I'm fine with that. I wouldn't think of putting alkaline cells in this
Nikon camera. The nickel cells are interesting as they are really cheap (I
see 2200mAh aa cells in the store for a bucktwentyfive.) Compare that to
the forty dollars I paid for the replacement Nikon battery that failed me
in three months in this Nikon camera.

This is interesting. I just realized, as I wrote this, that the 1.25 single
cell battery I saw in the store delivers three times the current of this
EN-EL1 680mAh forty-dollar proprietary battery! Zowee! The voltage is
different, of course, but the power differences are astounding.

It appears the initial cost of the Nikon battery is $8/Watt
EN-EL1 Li-Ion $40/battery at 680mAh x 7.4V = 5W == $8/Watt

While the initial cost of a NiMH battery is about 38 cents per Watt.
AA Ni-MH $1.25/battery at 2200mAh x 1.5V = 3.3W == $0.38/Watt

Now I know why Nikon puts the proprietary battery in the camera!

> 2. Rechargeable batteries have a finite lifespan. With modern high
> capacity batteries, this can be as little as a 2-3 hundred
> charge-discharge cycles.

I have no idea how many cycles I gave the batteries. I just kept them in
the charger until I needed them. When I had two, I put one in the charger
and one in the camera but that obviously failed as the one that was the
original was basically good for a few shots and nothing else.

> 3. REGARDLESS of brand, you should count on swapping batteries at least
> once in a busy day of shooting, and replacing the batteries every
> couple of years.
I guess my problem is that I should go out and buy MORE of these EN-EL1
proprietary batteries. Like Suze Orman says, do what's right for you before
you do what's right for the camera. I guess two new batteries would be
what's right for this camera but I really don't wish to funnel any more
money into Nikon ever. I'm debating whether to just throw away the Nikon
CP500 and buy a cheap five hundred dollar replacement that uses the 38
cents per watt (initial cost) batteries instead of eight dollars per watt.

> Check Nikon's specs for the number of expected exposures per charge,
> and how this was determined (percentage of shots with flash, etc.)

Looking at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091802nikoncp5000.a... I
don't see where to get archived battery life information for the Nikon
camera.

> Get a NEW battery, charge and maintain it according to instructions, and
> compare your results to the specification. If your results are more
> than, say, 30% less than the spec, and the camera checks out OK at a
> nikon authorized service station, THEN you can bitch about the brands'
> "untrustworthiness."

Good point. At least, if/when I get a new EN-EL1, I can begin a scientific
test of the results from day 1 instead of waiting for a few months when the
Nikon becomes unusable.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:06:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zu7dmejbvpru.jmr7nkr4ct4z$.dlg@40tude.net...
[ . . . ]
>
> I have no idea how many cycles I gave the batteries. I just kept them in
> the charger until I needed them.

Mahesh, that may be at least part of your problem and perhaps even all of
it. The recommendations I have seen say specifically NOT to do that (even
though at least one reviewer suggests the practice). Once the battery is
charged you should take it out of the charger, not necessarily that very
instant but within a reasonable time. You should not leave the battery in
the charger for days or weeks.

N.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:06:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <zu7dmejbvpru.jmr7nkr4ct4z$.dlg@40tude.net>, Mahesh Singh
<Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Looking at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091802nikoncp5000.a... I
> don't see where to get archived battery life information for the Nikon
> camera.

Check your owner's manual. For my camera, the expected results are
listed in detail:

110 minutes continuous operation (whether shooting or not)

OR

220 exposures with zoom, 30% flash firing, in fine mode, at 20 C

My results suggest the above is optimistic, but not drastically so.

ALSO, your habit of leaving the batteries continously in the charger
may be a major contributor to your problems. Few chargers are designed
to allow this without damage to the battery. Leaving it in for an
extended period after the charge is complete tends to warm the battery
and "boil off" the electrolyte.

Uh, don't just throw away the camera... I'll take it off your hands!
<GRIN> I already have a couple of good batteries to fit it.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:19:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I got Nikon digital camera. I found an independent battery business,
where I got a replacement battery for one fourth of the price of the
original one.
try it in your part of the world.
otherwise, Nikon has very good cameras.
And, what about Sony or Olympus with their very expensive memmory
cards?



On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:08:50 GMT, Mahesh Singh
<Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

*I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
*promise to me.
*
*I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
*"Trustworthiness and Creativity".
*
*For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this Nikon
*digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
*bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.
*
*But the reviewers failed me also (although I don't blame them for missing
*what only turns out to be an obvious flaw after a year or so of use).
*
*For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
*digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
*batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
*inclination to purchase more.
*
*Sure, it's still cheaper to fund Nikon's battery department than to buy a
*Canon or otherwise reliable camera - but I am so disgusted with the
*performance of these proprietary camera batteries that emotionally I feel
*Nikon has failed me (they get 50 points out of 100 on their brand promise).
*
*Why should I fund the failed Nikon battery development department.
*
*Which brings me to this post.
*Sure, I can gripe and moan but that doesn't tell me anything.
*What I would like to know is AM I THE ONLY ONE?
*
*Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
*promise of reliability? Or is it just me?
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:25:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:56:49 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5000/page4.asp

Interesting. I knew it was a dumb charger but what it implies here is that
the use model of leaving a battery in the charger until needed is probably
wrong.

Do I understand the battery charger correctly?
It appears to charge for a period of time only.

If that is true, then the battery would basically discharge constantly
given my use model, back into the charger. Can that be?

Since I leave the battery in the charger until needed, that could be days
or weeks, and after the first few hours, the battery is actually
discharging into the battery charger impedence.

Can Nikon really have designed it this badly for a thousand dollar camera?
Or does the dumb charger work in a different way than that which I infer
from the helpful Nikon Coolpix 5000 review URL
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5000/page4.asp
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:25:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:25:19 GMT, Mahesh Singh wrote:

> Interesting. I knew it was a dumb charger but what it implies here is that
> the use model of leaving a battery in the charger until needed is probably
> wrong.
>
> Do I understand the battery charger correctly?
> It appears to charge for a period of time only.

Yes, that's how it appears to me.


> If that is true, then the battery would basically discharge constantly
> given my use model, back into the charger. Can that be?

No. But realize that this is guesswork, since I don't have that
battery or charger, and am only going by what was said in the review
at dpreview.com. Once the charger reaches it's time limit, it
probably stops charging completely (no trickle charge), but the
battery shouldn't then start discharging back into the charger.
I've only heard rumors of something like this happening with PDAs
that charge in a dock attached to a computer's USB.


> Since I leave the battery in the charger until needed, that could be days
> or weeks, and after the first few hours, the battery is actually
> discharging into the battery charger impedence.
>
> Can Nikon really have designed it this badly for a thousand dollar camera?

I don't think that the battery is discharging into the charger.
But if it did, and even if the rate was moderately small, you'd
probably have been aware of the problem, as after sitting for
several weeks in the charger, the battery would have lost most of
its charge - which I assume hadn't happened. If the charger was so
unsophisticated to be "timer" based, it probably wouldn't be smart
enough to monitor the battery voltage and initiate another charge
cycle when the voltage dropped sufficiently. You probably have to
do that manually by removing and reinserting the battery, or by
unplugging and replugging the charger into your AC socket.

You should still remove the battery from the charger when charging
finished, as the problem with timer based chargers is that any
momentary loss of AC power will likely initiate another full charge
cycle as soon as the AC power returns. And as the battery was
already fully charged, that wouldn't be very good for the battery.


> Or does the dumb charger work in a different way than that which I infer
> from the helpful Nikon Coolpix 5000 review URL

I think it's likely that you should use the charger as I've
indicated above, and in the previous message. If you use Nikon's
charger, don't recharge the battery until it is fully depleted, or
nearly so. Or you could try to find a "smart" charger that would
allow you to safely "top up" the battery when it's only partially
depleted. But consider that the CP5000 is not really a $1000 camera
anymore. I have an even older 2mp digital camera that I paid about
$700 for (it was also $1000 when it was originally released). But
today I doubt that it would be worth much more than $100, and so it
may be more practical to look for something else. You could
probably find a much better camera (even from Nikon) in the $250 to
$300 range, unless you're otherwise perfectly happy with the CP5000,
and don't mind getting another battery or two for it.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:40:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:56:10 -0400, Bob Haar wrote:

> It seems to me that you did insufficient research before making your
> purchase.

You're telling me!

I just thought it was a rugged all-metal Nikon and that was enough for
trustworthiness for me (at that time). I was fooled, of course, by Nikon
marketing. Sure, it has an all-metal body but it can't even handle a score
of photos of my garden once a week.

So, I agree with you that I did wholly insufficient research. I just
trusted Nikon (and for that, it's my fault, not Nikon's). They are just
trying to make a buck. And, they made a buck off of me. At least the first
time I owned the Nikon brand. It's my fault. I agree wholeheartedly. It's
sad but I *thought* Nikons were designed to be trustworthy so I paid extra
for that promise of it always being there when I needed it. It's not.

> You say fifteen or twenty minutes, How many pictures are you taking in that
> time? Are you using the flash?

Without the flash, but with the LCD display on, I'd get maybe an hour. With
the flash used for every other shot (or so), I get about twenty minutes. A
little longer, a little less, depending on factors unknown to me. I never
shoot with the LCD turned off so I'm sure I'd get more (perhaps many more)
shots without the LCD but the accuracy of the glass viewfinder is dismal in
my opinion so I hate using it. If the close-up accuracy were better for the
viewfinder, I might change my mode but why did I buy a camera with such a
nicely designed LCD then in the first place. I must repeat I like the
FEATURES of this Nikon (well, all except the HI mode of photos which takes
30 seconds or more to save just ONE photo to the compact flash card!). That
HI mode is like the battery. Utterly unusable. But, all the other wonderful
features of the Nikon Coolpix 5000 are really nice (well, there is that
problem that the sound is always not syncronized with the picture in movie
mode). :) 

> I now get 750 to 1000 pictures on one battery charge.
I can only dream of such performance!


> What did Nikon's technical specs say about battery life?
I don't have any specs on what Nikon says the battery life should be.
I just ran unsuccessful google search just now too (searching for "nikon
coolpix 5000 battery life" which reported seventy thousand hits ...

Results 1 - 100 of about 68,100 English pages for nikon coolpix 5000
battery life. (0.32 seconds)

So I may get busy with finding the one which tells us the real battery life
expected of a brand new Nikon Coolpix 5000 with a brand-new battery.

> If this is so important to you, then you should have done the
> research.

Looking at the rear-view mirror, I wish I knew then what I know now. I
would never have bought this Nikon. Looking forward, I'll never again buy a
Nikon (I feel that the only way manufacturers learn is by losing all their
customers whenever they fail their fundamental brand promise - which - for
Nikon - doesn't leave any room for bad battery design).
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:44:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2 Jul 2005 14:21:00 -0700, Kitt wrote:

> So, what does Nikon support have to say about this? They say the
> battery will last approximately 100 minutes and you say it's under 30,
> right? Sounds to me like a defect, so what have they told you?

About six months ago I did call the Nikon toll-free number. I remember a
very nice lady in "technical support" on the phone who said it wasn't a
support problem that she could do anything about.

She suggested sending it to Nikon (I think in southern California, if I
remember correctly) for about twenty dollars. Nikon would look at it (for
free) and then contact me for an estimate. If I didn't want to fix the
camera, they'd send it back for a nominal fee (I think it was ten or twenty
dollars for the return postage).

I guess I should just bubblepack it up and send it to Nikon. I'm not using
it anyway as I can't trust the Nikon to be there when I need it to be.

Do you think they can test the current draw of the camera?
Can they test if the battery is defective?
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:44:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:44:12 GMT, Mahesh Singh wrote:

> Do you think they can test the current draw of the camera?
> Can they test if the battery is defective?

They can test the current draw of the camera, but it probably is
working fine.

They can test the battery and will probably find that it is
defective.

But the problem is with the way you use, and don't use the
batteries. If you used the batteries frequently, they'd probably
have lasted far longer. By using them minimally and infrequently,
but constantly recharging them, you're shortening the battery's
life. I wouldn't keep batteries in the charger indefinitely, but I
don't think that's the real cause of your battery problems. I think
it is caused by repeatedly charging the battery with a "stupid"
charger that doesn't know that, based on how you use the battery, it
should usually recharge the battery for a small amount of time,
measured in minutes, rather than the hours it always uses. Since
it's only a "stupid" charger, you have the responsibility to do the
thinking for it. :) 
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:46:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:28:15 -0400, Darrell wrote:

> We use one in the store to shoot passports, and we go days before changing
> batteries.

This is useful information.
Maybe I am an anomoly.
Maybe my use model is wrong (as has been mentioned) for this camera.

It would be interesting to find out how you charge your batteries?
Do you leave one in the charger and one in the camera like I do?
Do you swap them out once every few weeks (like I do when I use the camera)
or do you swap them out more frequently? How many batteries do you have? Do
you use flash and the LCD like I do?

This is very tantalizing as your experience seems wholly different than
mine with the Nikon Coolpix 5000 reliability to take pictures.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:26:31 -0400, Nostrobino wrote:

>> I have no idea how many cycles I gave the batteries. I just kept them in
>> the charger until I needed them.
>
> Mahesh, that may be at least part of your problem and perhaps even all of
> it. Once the battery is charged you should take it out of the charger

I'm slowly realizing this.

The charger is designed NOT for my use model it appears.
It appears the charger actually DISCHARGES the batter after the first
charge cycle "time" is up. Apparently, from what has been said on this
article, I am actually reverse charging the charger with the battery
instead of the other way around!

What an irony!

It's looking less like Nikon's fault and more like mine for assuming that
the charger charged the batteries properly. From what I am slowyly
realizing, it's my fault for using the charger that came with the Nikon
camera.

What appears to the be correct approach is to find a charger doesn't
discharge the batteries after charging them initially (if the batteries are
left in the charger more than five hours at a time).

But where do I find such a wonderfully "intelligent" (presumably non-Nikon)
charger that actually works with the EN-EL1 battery?
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:06:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:48bct2fri59m.d0pmc8z8zcur$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:26:31 -0400, Nostrobino wrote:
>
>>> I have no idea how many cycles I gave the batteries. I just kept them in
>>> the charger until I needed them.
>>
>> Mahesh, that may be at least part of your problem and perhaps even all of
>> it. Once the battery is charged you should take it out of the charger
>
> I'm slowly realizing this.
>
> The charger is designed NOT for my use model it appears.
> It appears the charger actually DISCHARGES the batter after the first
> charge cycle "time" is up. Apparently, from what has been said on this
> article, I am actually reverse charging the charger with the battery
> instead of the other way around!

Well, I don't know about that. The usual thing for these chargers is to drop
to a trickle charge once the charger decides the battery is fully charged.
But one charger's trickle charge is not necessarily the same as another's,
and the chargers may not all be equally "smart" about determining when the
battery is full.


>
> What an irony!
>
> It's looking less like Nikon's fault and more like mine for assuming that
> the charger charged the batteries properly. From what I am slowyly
> realizing, it's my fault for using the charger that came with the Nikon
> camera.
>
> What appears to the be correct approach is to find a charger doesn't
> discharge the batteries after charging them initially (if the batteries
> are
> left in the charger more than five hours at a time).
>
> But where do I find such a wonderfully "intelligent" (presumably
> non-Nikon)
> charger that actually works with the EN-EL1 battery?

The Nikon charger that came with my 8700 is model MH-56, which if I recall
earlier posts correctly is not the same model as yours. What the functional
difference is I do not know.

Buy.com links to this place and says they ship free, an EN-EL1 charger for
$17.99,
http://www.keybattery.com/product_info.php/products_id/...

I don't know anything about the product or the seller, but at that price it
seems worth trying one. You might check eBay also for similar chargers.

N.
July 3, 2005 4:06:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:06:50 GMT, Mahesh Singh <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:26:31 -0400, Nostrobino wrote:
>
>>> I have no idea how many cycles I gave the batteries. I just kept them in
>>> the charger until I needed them.
>>
>> Mahesh, that may be at least part of your problem and perhaps even all of
>> it. Once the battery is charged you should take it out of the charger
>
>I'm slowly realizing this.
>
>The charger is designed NOT for my use model it appears.
>It appears the charger actually DISCHARGES the batter after the first
>charge cycle "time" is up. Apparently, from what has been said on this
>article, I am actually reverse charging the charger with the battery
>instead of the other way around!
>
>What an irony!

That you didn't bother to read the directions?

>It's looking less like Nikon's fault and more like mine for assuming that
>the charger charged the batteries properly. From what I am slowyly
>realizing, it's my fault for using the charger that came with the Nikon
>camera.

Some types of battery's benefit from being exercised, that is, they must be
discharged fully before re-charging, which cameras don't do. Some people would
LOVE to have an auto cycling charger! I have to use a light bulb to kill my
battery's before charging them...

>What appears to the be correct approach is to find a charger doesn't
>discharge the batteries after charging them initially (if the batteries are
>left in the charger more than five hours at a time).
>
>But where do I find such a wonderfully "intelligent" (presumably non-Nikon)
>charger that actually works with the EN-EL1 battery?

You want a charger smarter then you? Shouldn't be hard to find...
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:06:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:52:33 -0400, Bob wrote:

> Some types of battery's benefit from being exercised, that is, they must be
> discharged fully before re-charging, which cameras don't do. Some people
> would LOVE to have an auto cycling charger! I have to use a light bulb to
> kill my battery's before charging them...

Since there's at least one camera, there may be even more. My
Fuji S5100 has a menu option that can be invoked to discharge the
batteries. As the manual says, it should be used only with NiMH
batteries, as it's not very good practice to discharge alkalines. :) 
July 3, 2005 5:27:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:12:04 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:52:33 -0400, Bob wrote:
>
>> Some types of battery's benefit from being exercised, that is, they must be
>> discharged fully before re-charging, which cameras don't do. Some people
>> would LOVE to have an auto cycling charger! I have to use a light bulb to
>> kill my battery's before charging them...
>
> Since there's at least one camera, there may be even more. My
>Fuji S5100 has a menu option that can be invoked to discharge the
>batteries. As the manual says, it should be used only with NiMH
>batteries, as it's not very good practice to discharge alkalines. :) 

Thats a good feature... I once used a video cam with NiCads, and after a while
the life of them became 3 minutes! Thats when I started using a light bulb...
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:45:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:08:50 GMT, Mahesh Singh <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I'll never purchase another Nikon because they failed (by far) their brand
>promise to me.
>
>I bought the Nikon Coolpix 5000 because of Nikon's brand promise of
>"Trustworthiness and Creativity".
>
>For Creativity, I give them the complete 50 points in so much as this Nikon
>digital camera has all the creativity features I wanted (and more). I
>bought the Nikon CP5000 based on camera review comments.
>
>But the reviewers failed me also (although I don't blame them for missing
>what only turns out to be an obvious flaw after a year or so of use).
>
>For Trustworthiness, I give Nikon a near zero score. The Nikon CP5000
>digital camera batteries last fifteen or twenty minutes before the
>batteries are exhausted. I have two batteries so far and absolutely no
>inclination to purchase more.
>
>Sure, it's still cheaper to fund Nikon's battery department than to buy a
>Canon or otherwise reliable camera - but I am so disgusted with the
>performance of these proprietary camera batteries that emotionally I feel
>Nikon has failed me (they get 50 points out of 100 on their brand promise).
>
>Why should I fund the failed Nikon battery development department.
>
>Which brings me to this post.
>Sure, I can gripe and moan but that doesn't tell me anything.
>What I would like to know is AM I THE ONLY ONE?
>
>Is there anyone else out there absolutely disgusted with the broken Nikon
>promise of reliability? Or is it just me?

The camera is apparently "reliable" enough, its the fact that the battery
isn't large enough. No doubt Nikon could have designed it to use a
larger battery, but then the camera would have to be bigger to handle
it. People looking for "small" cameras have to remember this.

Cameras with "long" battery life...

Canon Powershot A95. Uses four AA batteries. NiMH 2500 mAH
(now available) should give you several hours of "run time"...
Turn off the LCD and use the optical viewfinder and you'd most
likely double the run time. B&H had these on sale for a very
nice price last I looked. The newer A series Canons are all
"two AA" types and have a much shorter "run time". Why they
did it I don't know, as the size of the 510-520 aren't that much
smaller than the A75 and A85 that they replaced. Camera is
"pocketable" (pants pocket, big shirt pocket), but a bit heavy.

Minolta Z20. Uses four AA batteries. NiMH 2500 mAH in this one
might even beat the Canon by a bit as Minolta's Z10 and Z20 use
a design that even allows practical use of "disposal" batteries...
Camera uses an LCD viewfinder which has to be on to use, but
my experiences with my Z10 indicate there is plenty of "life" in
the four AA 2500 mAH NiMH that provide it with power. I'd guess
it should go close to three hours at least before running them down.
Biggest problem is that these about the size of small DSLR's, so
they aren't really something you can put into a pocket to carry.

A note on chargers... There are a lot of NiMH chargers out there.
The "fast" chargers do charge batteries fast, but get them really
hot and I suspect shorten their useful lives a bit when doing so.
So if you need to buy a charger for NiMH, search a bit for one
that doesn't overheat the batteries, even if it takes a couple of
hours to charge them back up.

Jerome Bigge
Photographer and Astronomer
Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:11:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:37:52 -0400, Scott Schuckert wrote:

> ... your habit of leaving the batteries continously in the charger
> may be a major contributor to your problems. Few chargers are designed
> to allow this without damage to the battery. Leaving it in for an
> extended period after the charge is complete tends to warm the battery
> and "boil off" the electrolyte.

I'm realizing I probably ruined the batteries by using the Nikon-supplied
charger in this manner. Yes. I just left the batteries in the charger when
not in use. If so, and if I boiled off the battery electrolyte, then I was
the one who abused the batteries. Not Nikon.

Amazing. At first I thought it was Nikon's fault.
Now I think it's mine.
But, I didn't know you can't leave a battery in the Nikon charger.

Maybe I should have known. But I would never in a million years think a
charger would not be designed to be used the way almost everyone uses it by
default.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:25:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:48:24 -0400, Nostrobino wrote:

> If I understand you correctly, you are perfectly happy with
> everything else about the camera, nothing has actually failed on it in the
> years you've had it, and it doesn't sound as if you've ever had the camera
> checked to see whether there's any problem which would cause the batteries
> to run down prematurely.

This is mostly true. Enough true to be considered true anyway. I'm VERY
unhappy with the HI setting for pictures (basic, norm, and fine are OK)
which takes more than 30 seconds to store the photo, inactivating any use
of the camera during that time. I just assume the Nikon doesn't have a HI
setting and go without that "feature". Also, the sound isn't syncronized
with the video in video mode. And it only takes 60 second videos. And, I've
lost a LOT of photos because of the lag time (about 2 seconds per shot).
All these flaws I can live with. Especially for such an old Nikon (I bought
it in 2003). What I can not live with is a dead battery all the time.


> I doubt whether there's anything wrong with the batteries themselves,
> especially since you have two of 'em and evidently get the same result from
> both.

I think I'm coming to the realization that I must have 'abused' the
batteries by using the Nikon-supplied battery charger. I should have thrown
away the Nikon charger as soon as I got it I guess. Before I go out and buy
new batteries, I should first get a charger that won't boil off the battery
electrolyte. I don't know WHERE to get that charger, but it looks like the
Nikon battery problem is really my problem for using that original charger
with the battery in it all the time except when in use in the camera.

> I recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 8700 which takes the same EN-EL1
> size battery, and I don't have anything remotely like the problem with
> battery life that you're complaining about.

It would be helpful if we knew something about your charger. Does it boil
off the electrolyte like the Nikon MH-53 charger does? If not, then that
could very well be the reason for your long battery life.

> Either the camera is doing something wrong, or you are.
Actually, I think we found the third culprit. The charger. Or, more
precisely, how I am using the charger. I typically put the battery in the
charger until I need it in the camera. The assumption (wrong it turns out)
was that the battery would be fully charged when needed. However, it seems,
based on these communications, that the battery is actually discharging
into the charger after the first hour or two or so. So, when I put it in
the Nikon, it's long dead. At least that seems to be what I think the
agreement is here from the battery experts.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:25:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mahesh Singh" <Mritunjay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:a1vfzlv33m1v$.kns9pb0pbn6i$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:48:24 -0400, Nostrobino wrote:
>
[ . . . ]
>
>> I doubt whether there's anything wrong with the batteries themselves,
>> especially since you have two of 'em and evidently get the same result
>> from
>> both.
>
> I think I'm coming to the realization that I must have 'abused' the
> batteries by using the Nikon-supplied battery charger. I should have
> thrown
> away the Nikon charger as soon as I got it I guess. Before I go out and
> buy
> new batteries, I should first get a charger that won't boil off the
> battery
> electrolyte. I don't know WHERE to get that charger, but it looks like the
> Nikon battery problem is really my problem for using that original charger
> with the battery in it all the time except when in use in the camera.

Mahesh, I think you may be drawing the wrong lesson from all this. While
there probably are better chargers than the one supplied with your camera
(note that Nikon changed the charger for newer cameras like the 8700 which
use the same battery, and they probably had some reason to do this), I
strongly suspect that the *main* reason for your battery problems was your
practice of leaving the batteries in the charger for extended periods.


>
>> I recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 8700 which takes the same EN-EL1
>> size battery, and I don't have anything remotely like the problem with
>> battery life that you're complaining about.
>
> It would be helpful if we knew something about your charger. Does it boil
> off the electrolyte like the Nikon MH-53 charger does? If not, then that
> could very well be the reason for your long battery life.

I do not leave batteries in *any* charger indefinitely. For Li Ion
rechargeables I have two different chargers for Minolta batteries, two
different chargers for Pentax batteries, one charger for Canon batteries,
one charger for Panasonic batteries, and now two different chargers for
Nikon batteries. In addition I have several chargers for AA-size NiMH
batteries. My experience with the Nikons is only recent, so doesn't prove
much one way or the other. But with the others, I do the same thing with
all, I charge the batteries and when they're charged I take them out of the
charger. If I'm not going to use a particular battery for a while I try to
put it away partially discharged, and only charge it up shortly before using
it. Since Li Ion batteries charge relatively fast this is not a problem.
*None* of my Li Ion batteries have failed me so far, or given me anything
less than satisfactory performance. (I have had several NiMH batteries die.)

While I don't doubt that some chargers are better than others, and there may
well be better products than your MH-53, my best guess is that you gradually
cooked your batteries to death by leaving them in the charger for extended
periods, and I suspect that if I had done the same with *any* of my chargers
my results would have been more or less the same as yours.

Don't feel too guilty about this. There are many contradictory opinions
about how best to care for rechargeable batteries, and at least one seller
in fact recommended an extra set of NiMH batteries be left in the charger,
while the *manufacturer* of the charger he was selling said that this should
*not* be done. At least one reviewer (Steve's) has also recommended leaving
an extra set of AAs in the charger so a freshly charged set will always be
ready. My guess is that for someone who uses the camera every day, leaving
the extra set in the charger doesn't do so much harm because he rotates the
in-camera set with the freshly charged set about daily. But I still never do
this myself, with any type of battery, even when I *am* using the same
camera every day. The battery goes in the charger and when I notice it's
charged, I take it out.


>
>> Either the camera is doing something wrong, or you are.
> Actually, I think we found the third culprit. The charger. Or, more
> precisely, how I am using the charger. I typically put the battery in the
> charger until I need it in the camera. The assumption (wrong it turns out)
> was that the battery would be fully charged when needed. However, it
> seems,
> based on these communications, that the battery is actually discharging
> into the charger after the first hour or two or so. So, when I put it in
> the Nikon, it's long dead. At least that seems to be what I think the
> agreement is here from the battery experts.

I doubt that the battery discharges in the charger, but I don't know for
sure. My guess is still that you've just cooked your batteries to death (or
near death) by leaving them on trickle charge for extended periods. But I
don't really know how your charger works; if it does *not* keep a trickle
charge on after the battery reaches full charge, then you may well be right
about the battery discharging. In either case, if you just take the battery
out of the charger when it's full, you avoid the problem.

N.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:28:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:52:33 -0400, Bob wrote:

> You want a charger smarter then you?
> Shouldn't be hard to find...

Agreed. :) 

But that's why I paid a thousand dollars for a camera kit.
I had trusted Nikon to design a battery charger that charged the batteries
in the most obvious use model possible.

I was wrong. On both counts.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:48:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:13:44 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

>> Do I understand the battery charger correctly?
>> It appears to charge for a period of time only.
> Yes, that's how it appears to me.

>> If that is true, then the battery would basically discharge constantly
>> given my use model, back into the charger. Can that be?
>
> Once the charger reaches it's time limit, it
> probably stops charging completely (no trickle charge), but the
> battery shouldn't then start discharging back into the charger.

Why not? Where does the potential energy bottled up in the battery go when
the Nikon admittedly "dumb" charger turns off? It depends on the charger
design, but, if it's so dumb as to only be a timed charger, then what makes
us so confident it also isolates the charger circuit from the battery to
prevent the battery from leaking back into the charger circuit?

> I've only heard rumors of something like this happening with PDAs
> that charge in a dock attached to a computer's USB.
It's a basic electrical principal. If the left side of the situation has
more potential energy (i.e., voltage) than the right side, the right side
gets charged. The converse is true. If the right side of the situation (in
this case the battery) has more potential energy (i.e., voltage) than the
left side (which is now down to zero volts), then the left side gets
'charged'. Unless of course, if the battery charger is smart enough to
isolate the two sides with "smart" circuitry. But, we all agree this is a
dumb (i.e., time-based) charger. So what makes us so confident it is
actually intelligently isolating the battery that it dumbly charged in the
first place?

> I don't think that the battery is discharging into the charger.
> But if it did, and even if the rate was moderately small, you'd
> probably have been aware of the problem, as after sitting for
> several weeks in the charger, the battery would have lost most of
> its charge - which I assume hadn't happened.

Well. Come to think of it. That seems EXACTLY like what happens. The
battery is always dead, even just out of the charger for two weeks.

> If the charger was so unsophisticated to be "timer" based ...
I think we all agree that it is this dumb.

> ... it probably wouldn't be smart enough to monitor the battery
> voltage and initiate another charge cycle when the voltage dropped
> sufficiently.

Yup. I think we agree on that one too. So, even if the DPREVIEW documented
dumb Nikon charger did intelligently isolate the now-charged battery, the
battery would lose its charge over time at the very best. How much would it
lose over a two week period (on average, let's say) is another question.
These are Lithium batteries so I assume only a small percentage of its
charge would be lost. But, we're seeing a huge percentage of its capacity
gone. My assumption (unproven) is that the battery is actually discharging
back into the Nikon charging circuitry. At least this would explain what is
happening (albeit this is just a wild-butt guess).

> You probably have to do that manually by removing and reinserting
> the battery, or by unplugging and replugging the charger ...
This makes the little yellow LED blink when I just tried it just now.
So, I guess that initiates a single complete "timed" cycle.

> You should still remove the battery from the charger when charging
> finished, as the problem with timer based chargers is that any
> momentary loss of AC power will likely initiate another full charge
> cycle as soon as the AC power returns.

I'm not so much worried about momentary loss of power (which doesn't happen
often) as I am about the Nikon battery discharging into the Nikon charging
circuitry over time. Of course, that would also mean that the battery would
be fully charged after an hour or two without sitting in the charger longer
than that and I'm not seeing that at this time (months after leaving the
battery in the Nikon charger). So, the Nikon battery charger boiling of the
electrolyte in my use model really seems to be the primary culprit.


> If you use Nikon's charger, don't recharge the battery until it is
> fully depleted, or nearly so. Or you could try to find a "smart"
> charger that would allow you to safely "top up" the battery

Yes. A non-Nikon smart charger would have been the way to go had I known
what you have taught me so far today.

> You could probably find a much better camera (even from Nikon) in the
> $250 to $300 range, unless you're otherwise perfectly happy with the
> CP5000, and don't mind getting another battery or two for it.

Well, I REALLY liked the quality of the pictures the Nikon camera took.
They were the best by far I've seen in a while. But, what good is that when
the camera is dead as a doorknob.

I'm thinking of getting a Canon S2 IS (because it is the closest
replacement to the Nikon that has AA batteries that I can find) but the
main thing that prevents me from getting the S2 IS is the fact the flash is
dumb. At least in the Canon S1 IS the flash popped up automatically when in
"green" mode when flash was needed. In the Canon S2 IS camera, the flash
stays down and I just know I'll lose a LOT of photos because of that
requirement for a manual intervention to pop up the flash. This is lost
functionality to me. I'd get the Canon S1 IS if it weren't for the fact I
like to blow up the photos so I need at least 5 MP.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:48:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 02:48:58 GMT, Mahesh Singh wrote:

> Why not? Where does the potential energy bottled up in the battery go when
> the Nikon admittedly "dumb" charger turns off? It depends on the charger
> design, but, if it's so dumb as to only be a timed charger, then what makes
> us so confident it also isolates the charger circuit from the battery to
> prevent the battery from leaking back into the charger circuit?

The potential energy probably remains entirely within the battery.
This isn't a complex design issue.


>> I've only heard rumors of something like this happening with PDAs
>> that charge in a dock attached to a computer's USB.

> It's a basic electrical principal. If the left side of the situation has
> more potential energy (i.e., voltage) than the right side, the right side
> gets charged. The converse is true. If the right side of the situation (in
> this case the battery) has more potential energy (i.e., voltage) than the
> left side (which is now down to zero volts), then the left side gets
> 'charged'. Unless of course, if the battery charger is smart enough to
> isolate the two sides with "smart" circuitry. But, we all agree this is a
> dumb (i.e., time-based) charger. So what makes us so confident it is
> actually intelligently isolating the battery that it dumbly charged in the
> first place?

It's not as simple as you're making it out. Even if the battery
does drain somewhat, the charger's impedance might be so high that
the battery's current drain is measured in microamps. Most
electrical equipment (radios, cameras, etc.) drain the battery when
"turned off". They don't use a big electrical switch to isolate the
battery from the device. They're constantly running, but at an
extremely low power level, but sufficient to detect button presses,
and switches moved to different positions. You're making a few too
many unfounded assumptions.


>> I don't think that the battery is discharging into the charger.
>> But if it did, and even if the rate was moderately small, you'd
>> probably have been aware of the problem, as after sitting for
>> several weeks in the charger, the battery would have lost most of
>> its charge - which I assume hadn't happened.
>
> Well. Come to think of it. That seems EXACTLY like what happens. The
> battery is always dead, even just out of the charger for two weeks.

Then you may be right and *my* assumption may be wrong. But if
the charger drained the battery that quickly (even when the
batteries are new?) why wouldn't that be an immediate WARNING SIGNAL
that something improper is being done, and your technique should be
changed immediately, rather than being repeated for several years?


> Well, I REALLY liked the quality of the pictures the Nikon camera took.
> They were the best by far I've seen in a while. But, what good is that when
> the camera is dead as a doorknob.
>
> I'm thinking of getting a Canon S2 IS (because it is the closest
> replacement to the Nikon that has AA batteries that I can find) but the
> main thing that prevents me from getting the S2 IS is the fact the flash is
> dumb. At least in the Canon S1 IS the flash popped up automatically when in
> "green" mode when flash was needed. In the Canon S2 IS camera, the flash
> stays down and I just know I'll lose a LOT of photos because of that
> requirement for a manual intervention to pop up the flash. This is lost
> functionality to me. I'd get the Canon S1 IS if it weren't for the fact I
> like to blow up the photos so I need at least 5 MP.

That's funny - I prefer flashes that don't pop up automatically.
I'd much rather lose an occasional shot due to my own carelessness
(the display should have a blinking indicator telling me that the
flash is needed - display indicators are there for a reason) than
have the flash go off at an inopportune time. If you really want to
do it right, try to get a camera with a hot shoe, which will allow
you to use an external flash. You'll lose fewer photos (the
internal flash is often too weak for all but close shots). Using
external flashes should also eliminate all traces of redeye. And if
you add lens adapters, you'd need to use an external flash as the
adapters usually interfere with the popup flashes. Some flashes can
even help cameras focus faster, and since you don't have to use the
camera's internal flash, its batteries can last far longer between
charges.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:51:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:27:34 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> If you used the batteries frequently, they'd probably
> have lasted far longer. By using them minimally and infrequently,
> but constantly recharging them, you're shortening the battery's
> life.

Yes. I'm beginning to clearly see that now.

I probably am the perfect test case for the absolutely wrong thing to do to
batteries. I can vouch for the fact that my use model (leaving the Nikon
batteries in the Nikon battery charger until the Nikon camera needed them)
is wholly wrong. It will KILL the battery (i.e., apparently it will boil
off the electrolyte) in some time between three to eight months of such
abuse.

I just wish it was someone else who did this 'long term test' and reported
the results to us. :) 
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:54:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:27:34 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

> I wouldn't keep batteries in the charger indefinitely, but I
> don't think that's the real cause of your battery problems. I think
> it is caused by repeatedly charging the battery with a "stupid"
> charger that doesn't know that, based on how you use the battery, it
> should usually recharge the battery for a small amount of time,
> measured in minutes, rather than the hours it always uses. Since
> it's only a "stupid" charger, you have the responsibility to do the
> thinking for it. :) 

Yes. I think the one observation that seems to match the "long term test"
results most accurately is that I boiled off the Nikon battery electrolyte
by placing half-charged Nikon batteries in the "not smart" Nikon battery
charger which then proceeded to destroy the batteries.

Someone slap me for assuming a thousand-dollar high-tech camera would have
as high-tech a battery charger which didn't daily destroy the batteries
little by little each day in the charger. :) 
!