Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

battery life

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 13, 2005 11:23:59 PM

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

I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
10 photos and about 1/2 hour.

My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
batteries you would buy in the store?

thanks

More about : battery life

Anonymous
July 13, 2005 11:24:00 PM

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

Bacchus wrote:

> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
> batteries you would buy in the store?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 11:24:00 PM

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

"Bacchus" <kdoye2112@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RomdnbUqKozFP0jfRVn-jQ@rogers.com...
>I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
> Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for
> about
> 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
>
> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
> batteries you would buy in the store?

Camera companies really make their cameras look BAD by including standard
alkalines with their cameras, since they are teh WORST choice for use with
digital cameras.
NiMh batteries last FAR longer than Duracells, Energizers, or any other
alkaline batteries.
This is because although NiMh is rated at lower voltage, they are better at
delivering heavy current to high-energy-draw devices like flash units and
digital cameras. Alkalines are great for low-draw devices like smoke
alarms...flashlights...and other devices--especially those which will sit
unused on a shelf for extended periods. Since NiMh batteries slowly lose
their charge when left idle, they are not a good choice for flashlights, and
definitely not smoke alarms, clocks, etc.

If you get a set of 2300mA batteries, and get them charged...you will be
AMAZED at the improvement in your camera.
Don't be afraid of lower rated ones, either, like those rated from
1800-2100mA. These will still FAR outperform any alkaline batteries.

-Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 12:13:14 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:23:59 -0400, Bacchus wrote:

> I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
> Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
> 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
>
> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
> batteries you would buy in the store?

In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines. In older power
hungry cameras, the NiMH cells naturally don't last as long, but the
alkalines die *far* sooner, so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
last 5 or 10 times as long. Battery life is usually included in the
camera reviews at dpreview.com, and downloadable manuals often
include battery life tables. For my camera, the manual states that
alkaline AAs should last for 200 shots and NiMH about 400 when
tested according to their procedure. I generally use NiMH but
haven't tested them, but I did test a set of alkaline AAs several
months ago, and I did get more than 200 shots out of them.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:19:15 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:15:51 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Camera companies really make their cameras look BAD by including standard
> alkalines with their cameras, since they are teh WORST choice for use with
> digital cameras.
> NiMh batteries last FAR longer than Duracells, Energizers, or any other
> alkaline batteries.

That's not as true today as it once was. The Fuji camera I bought
late last year does indeed get longer life from NiMH batteries
(twice as much), but that still amounts to over 200 shots from a set
of alkalines. And that includes substantial use of the flash (but
anti-redeye preflashes disabled), much zooming of the lens, the EVF
or LCD always on (no optical viewfinder), the use of a focus-assist
lamp and a fair amount of LCD chimping. I initially thought as you
did, and didn't consider using the alkalines included with the
camera until a thread in this ng several months ago spurred me into
testing them. I realize that some new cameras don't do as well, but
I doubt that any of them have the horrifically short life with
alkalines that were business as usual several years ago. And mine
is far from the only recent camera that performs well with
alkalines.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:19:16 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:5albd1143s61s7lb5o5f3g4elvgkefgit8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:15:51 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Camera companies really make their cameras look BAD by including standard
>> alkalines with their cameras, since they are teh WORST choice for use
>> with
>> digital cameras.
>> NiMh batteries last FAR longer than Duracells, Energizers, or any other
>> alkaline batteries.
>
> That's not as true today as it once was. The Fuji camera I bought
> late last year does indeed get longer life from NiMH batteries
> (twice as much), but that still amounts to over 200 shots from a set
> of alkalines. And that includes substantial use of the flash (but
> anti-redeye preflashes disabled), much zooming of the lens, the EVF
> or LCD always on (no optical viewfinder), the use of a focus-assist
> lamp and a fair amount of LCD chimping. I initially thought as you
> did, and didn't consider using the alkalines included with the
> camera until a thread in this ng several months ago spurred me into
> testing them. I realize that some new cameras don't do as well, but
> I doubt that any of them have the horrifically short life with
> alkalines that were business as usual several years ago. And mine
> is far from the only recent camera that performs well with
> alkalines.

Nobody is suggesting that Alkalines don't work.
They do.
But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...
AND...
You don't throw them away when they run down.
I see little use for Alkaline in digital photography aside from emergency
back-up use.
Other than that, it is silly to promote the use of alkalines for this
application.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 4:32:43 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:23:59 -0400, Bacchus wrote:
>
>> I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I
>> have a Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they
>> lasted for about 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
>>
>> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
>> batteries you would buy in the store?
>
> In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
> AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines.

In my limited experience the NiMH lasted 5 - 50 times longer. It
depends on the camera.


> In older power
> hungry cameras, the NiMH cells naturally don't last as long, but the
> alkalines die *far* sooner, so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
> last 5 or 10 times as long. Battery life is usually included in the
> camera reviews at dpreview.com, and downloadable manuals often
> include battery life tables. For my camera, the manual states that
> alkaline AAs should last for 200 shots and NiMH about 400 when
> tested according to their procedure. I generally use NiMH but
> haven't tested them, but I did test a set of alkaline AAs several
> months ago, and I did get more than 200 shots out of them.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 4:32:44 AM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:32:43 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

>> In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
>> AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines.
>
> In my limited experience the NiMH lasted 5 - 50 times longer. It
> depends on the camera.

>> so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
>> last 5 or 10 times as long.

Evidently your experience was limited to older cameras that were
*real* battery hogs. Unless I'm missing something, we're saying
pretty much the same thing. That said, I'd like to know what camera
got 50 times longer life from NiMH AAs than from alkalines. I've
never heard of any approaching differences of that magnitude.
Additionally, the camera(s) most likely to be the one(s) you're
referring to would probably have been made 5 or more years ago, when
alkalines were substantially the same as today's, but NiMH
capacities were significantly less, 1,300mah and 1,100mah not being
uncommon.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 4:42:53 AM

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

Bacchus wrote:

> I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
> Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
> 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
>
> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
> batteries you would buy in the store?
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
Hi,
I think something wrong with your camera. I never saw digital camera
eating up batteries that fast.
Tony
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 5:06:11 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:15 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Nobody is suggesting that Alkalines don't work.
> They do.
> But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...

Evidently we disagree on the use of "FAR" better life. Where NiMH
once routinely provided 10 times longer life than alkalines, which I
would agree represents "far better life", it's now down to no more
than 2 times better. What I didn't mention in the last message was
that after taking about 212 pictures (with heavy use of flash,
etc.), the same set of alkalines were left in the camera and
pictures continued to be taken without the use of the flash until
the batteries couldn't provide power to take any more pictures.
Over the next couple of days I was able to take more than 400
additional pictures, for a total of over 600 from one set of
alkalines. I noted that the NiMH was supposed to have been able to
take up to 400 pictures. Based on MY typical usage, by the time I'd
take 600 pictures (and many are outdoors where flash isn't normally
used, so I might get much more than 600 shots from a single set of
alkaline batteries) at least two, maybe three months would have
passed. Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
have taken their toll.

You like to speak in absolutes, but it is NOT true that, as you
said, "But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...". That used to
be true. It still is in many cases, especially with older camera
designs. But it no longer always is the case. And as I showed, it
also depends on how the camera is used. I can take many hundreds of
pictures in a single day with a single set of alkalines and NiMH can
easily surpass that, but it won't be able to do "FAR better", at
least with my definition of FAR. And I rarely take many hundreds of
pictures in a single day. But if I take a dozen pictures per day,
every day, one set of alkalines will last FAR longer than NiMH.


> AND...
> You don't throw them away when they run down.
> I see little use for Alkaline in digital photography aside from emergency
> back-up use.

Alkalines don't represent the environmental hazard that NiCads do.
But if you prefer using NiMH, and are consistent in only owning high
mileage cars (no SUVs, please), avoid the use of plastic shopping
bags by toting your own canvas or nylon bags when you go shopping,
and are a fastidious recycler, then good for you. But I'd guess
that many people that frown on the use of alkaline batteries don't
fit that profile.


> Other than that, it is silly to promote the use of alkalines for this
> application.

Absolute statements such as this are FAR sillier. And nobody was
promoting the use of alkaline batteries, just showing that they can
sometimes be a practical alternative to the use of NiMH (and even
Li-ion) rechargeable batteries. I still continue to use NiMH
batteries in the camera even though they are much less convenient,
since almost every time I use the camera I need to replace the
batteries with a freshly charged set. It's not my only camera, and
it's not uncommon for several weeks or more to pass between the time
when I set it down and when I pick it up to take more pictures.

You on the other hand are definitely promoting the wide use of NiMH
batteries, even though for some people, with some cameras, and some
usage patterns, NiMH would be a poorer choice, and would actually
cost more money in the long run. I'll leave it to you to figure out
how this might be possible, but if you say it can't ever be true,
you'd be dead wrong. But there's nothing wrong with occasionally
being wrong. It's everyone's right. Some people even appreciate
reviews written by a particular reviewer who seems to specialize in
getting things wrong. :) 
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 5:06:12 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:mtpbd1lfepr2pe4p1b0oki1ctla7c2e0uq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:15 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Nobody is suggesting that Alkalines don't work.
>> They do.
>> But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...
>
> Evidently we disagree on the use of "FAR" better life. Where NiMH
> once routinely provided 10 times longer life than alkalines, which I
> would agree represents "far better life", it's now down to no more
> than 2 times better.

I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider DOUBLE the
life, and...
....you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
:) 
Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around, but I
suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life and
comparatively zero cost.


What I didn't mention in the last message was
> that after taking about 212 pictures (with heavy use of flash,
> etc.), the same set of alkalines were left in the camera and
> pictures continued to be taken without the use of the flash until
> the batteries couldn't provide power to take any more pictures.
> Over the next couple of days I was able to take more than 400
> additional pictures, for a total of over 600 from one set of
> alkalines. I noted that the NiMH was supposed to have been able to
> take up to 400 pictures. Based on MY typical usage, by the time I'd
> take 600 pictures (and many are outdoors where flash isn't normally
> used, so I might get much more than 600 shots from a single set of
> alkaline batteries) at least two, maybe three months would have
> passed. Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
> lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
> at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
> have taken their toll.

Aaaah. So you're talking about leaving NiMh batteries sitting for months at
a time?
Well of course that is not ideal.
NiMh batteries are at their best when they are used up and charged.
Holding a long-term charge sitting on a shelf or in a camera for months is
never going to be their strength.

>
> You like to speak in absolutes, but it is NOT true that, as you
> said, "But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...".

Assuming you're not letting your camera collect dust for months...yes, you
will.
:) 

Of course some devices will fair OK with alkalines, but some cameras will
literally poop out before you know it, as Still... You're ready to dismiss
twice the life as no big deal. That seems odd to me.

That used to
> be true. It still is in many cases, especially with older camera
> designs. But it no longer always is the case.

"Twice" or even 50% more life is "FAR" better, is it not?

>And as I showed, it
> also depends on how the camera is used. I can take many hundreds of
> pictures in a single day with a single set of alkalines and NiMH can
> easily surpass that, but it won't be able to do "FAR better", at
> least with my definition of FAR.

You're doing an awful lot of quibbling over my use of the word "far."

>And I rarely take many hundreds of
> pictures in a single day.

But this isn't really about you or your personal shooting habits.
It's simply a comparison of battery capacities.
In a field where people rave over "twice teh megapixels"..."twice the ISO
sensitivity"...twice the this and that" I think you're dismissing what most
people consider a VERY large improvement in performance. -And frankly, I
hope newbies reading along here take your post with a big fat grain of salt.
You are steering them in a direction that is likely to lead them toward
disappointment and needless expense.

>But if I take a dozen pictures per day,
> every day, one set of alkalines will last FAR longer than NiMH.

That's assuming you refuse to switch between two sets of batteries every so
often.
If you are intent on using them only occasionally, or until they either die
or are thrown away, then alkalines are STILL the expensive alternative.
Ever hear of a trickle charger? Two sets of batteries...one in the
camera...one kept in the charger always.
--No more wasted alkaline money...no more trash.
If you feel compelled to fill your trash with disposable batteries, then
feel free.

As I've said--For those who refuse to swap batteries occasionally, then
alkalines will work for them.
NiMh batteries sit in my flash sometimes for weeks with only occasional use,
and I don't have to keep swapping them out as you seem to imply. Unless
you're storing NiMh batteries for many weeks, they should retain plenty of
charge to keep most devices rolling.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:24:30 AM

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

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
>
> Again... K-I-D-D-I-N-G-!-!
> (Just making sure... Things are tough around here lately...)
> You made valid points, ASSAR...

I also think he makes some valid points, we own a Casio QV-R51, we also
own a Sony F828 and a Canon 20D so you can imagine that the Casio does
not get all that much use. It came with NiMh batteries and a charger
from them, it will last for about forever on one set of batteries, and
only uses two at that. We are going on a long camping trip and for the
small amount of usage that this camera is going to get we are not
bothering to take the NiMh batteries and charger, I fully expect two AA
batteries to last for the whole time we are gone.

Scott
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:26:47 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:01:26 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider DOUBLE the
> life, and...
> ...you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
> :) 
> Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around, but I
> suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life and
> comparatively zero cost.

You're not THINKING. Are you here only to try to win arguments
even when you're mistaken? If you want to view all photographers as
having similar cameras and similar shooting styles, and they're all
like you, then your arguments are valid. What I've said is that
there are exceptions to your rules, and that your rules are becoming
less and less true as cameras become more efficient in their use of
battery power. You also seem to think that all numbers greater than
1 are the same. I don't. When NiMH batteries lasted 10 times as
long as alkalines, as I said, that was FAR more. Note the CAPS.
It's used for special emphasis. Heap big. Lotsa and lotsa life
more than alkalines. Don't you have any way to recognize that
cameras have changed and are changing still? I showed that with my
camera, the best that NiMH can do is double the battery life, and
depending on how the camera is used, alkalines can actually last
longer. So it is now more accurate to say that some cameras get FAR
more life from NiMH, others get noticeably more, and others might
get less. Based on YOUR experience, you seem to want to shout FAR
MORE as the only answer.

Not all people take thousands of pictures per year. Some in this
newsgroup take more than that, but millions of people only take
dozens per year. For them, with an efficient camera, alkaline or
lithium primary batteries make far more sense, both for reasons of
cost and convenience. I know a number of people that use their
cameras only on special occasions, maybe once or twice each year,
and probably average fewer than 50 pictures per year. At the price
I pay for alkaline AAs, if I took that amount of pictures with my
camera (not all of the cameras, just the most recent, a Fuji), a set
of alkalines would cost me a bit less than one dollar, and might
last 4 to 6 years. Lithium AAs would be more expensive, but might
easily last 10 years. For that type of photographer not only would
NiMH batteries cost more (with the charger), they'd also be less
convenient to use, and with such light usage patterns probably would
have to be discarded before the first set of alkalines would have
pooped out. I have a small Canon Powershot that got similar 'light'
usage. It came with a non-rechargeable lithium battery, so the
first thing I did was buy Canon's kit that included a charger and a
rechargeable proprietary battery (inside are 3 AAA sized NiMH cells)
and a second battery. Total cost - about $125 extra. Today, 4 to 5
years later, those batteries are effectively worthless. One has
less than 10% of the capacity of a new battery and the other is a
little better, perhaps 15%. So I replaced them with a couple of
cheaper, non-Canon labeled batteries for about $40 total. With the
use I give this camera, I probably should have bought a couple of
primary lithium batteries for 1/2 the cost. If this small Canon
camera used batteries as efficiently as the Fuji and also used
standard batteries, it would have been a no-brainer. Pop in a
couple of AA alkalines and replace them several years later.


>> Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
>> lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
>> at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
>> have taken their toll.
>
> Aaaah. So you're talking about leaving NiMh batteries sitting for months at
> a time?
> Well of course that is not ideal.
> Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
> > lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
> > at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
> > have taken their toll.
>
> Aaaah. So you're talking about leaving NiMh batteries sitting for months at
> a time?
> Well of course that is not ideal.
> NiMh batteries are at their best when they are used up and charged.
> Holding a long-term charge sitting on a shelf or in a camera for months is
> never going to be their strength.

So? You'd tell millions of people that the way they use their
cameras should be changed, in order to keep NiMH batteries (which
aren't needed) in good shape? Of course it's not ideal for NiMH
batteries, which (if you'd think a bit instead of trying to cling to
a one-size-fits-all posture) means that in some circumstances, NiMH
batteries are not the ideal batteries to use.


>> You like to speak in absolutes, but it is NOT true that, as you
>> said, "But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...".
>
> Assuming you're not letting your camera collect dust for months...yes, you
> will.
> :) 

Of course, and I've agreed that NiMH batteries are usually the
choice for cameras. You seem to be straining mightily to avoid
having to admit that there may be some cases where NiMH batteries
are a poorer choice than non-rechargeables. You've admitted by
implication that cameras that collect dust for months might be
examples of those. And there are millions of camera owners that DO
let their cameras collect dust for months. Even so, if their
cameras are old and get horrible life from alkalines, then they
should use NiMH batteries. But if I'm aware that they have a camera
of recent vintage that can take between 100 and 200 pictures with a
single set of alkalines, I'd be foolish to try to persuade them to
mess around with NiMH AAs and battery chargers.


> Of course some devices will fair OK with alkalines, but some cameras will
> literally poop out before you know it, as Still... You're ready to dismiss
> twice the life as no big deal. That seems odd to me.

That's a blatant misrepresentation. Twice the life can be a big
deal, but sometimes it isn't. When you can't take advantage of
'twice the life', it certainly isn't a big deal. And sometimes
'twice the life' evaporates so that it is not only much less than
twice as much, but you even get less life from NiMH. Is your memory
so poor that you forgot the examples I provided, or do you prefer to
dismiss them in order to cling to your statement that can only be
true when you exclude the examples that show the opposite? Again,
the way you use YOUR camera is not the way everybody uses theirs.


> You're doing an awful lot of quibbling over my use of the word "far."

Use it appropriately and there'll be no disagreement.
Extrapolating from when "FAR better" is a good description to all
cases is ludicrous, because you can only do so by being blind to the
cases when alkalines actually last longer and are a better solution.
You don't let your camera collect dust for months, so therefore
either nobody else does, or if they do (to your way of thinking)
they shouldn't. Sorry, but when it comes to recommending equipment
to others, I take into account their real world needs, not a
personal fantasy world that I'd like everyone to fit into.


> But this isn't really about you or your personal shooting habits.
> It's simply a comparison of battery capacities.
> In a field where people rave over "twice teh megapixels"..."twice the ISO
> sensitivity"...twice the this and that" I think you're dismissing what most
> people consider a VERY large improvement in performance. -And frankly, I
> hope newbies reading along here take your post with a big fat grain of salt.
> You are steering them in a direction that is likely to lead them toward
> disappointment and needless expense.

That's pure rubbish, and you do produce it by the ton. Even a
newbie can see that you're dismissing their ability to think for
themselves. I haven't tried steering *anyone* in any direction,
whether it's alkalines or NiMH. You're the one that's steering
everyone in one direction only. In one sense, it's safe to
recommend using NiMH batteries if you have absolutely no knowledge
of the camera that is owned or how it will be used. If the camera
is not a new model, or if the owner will take a thousand or more
pictures per year, NiMH batteries are almost certainly the better
choice. But that may come with a price if the camera is efficient
or the owner takes few pictures per year. For these people, if
they use NiMH batteries it will increase their total operating costs
and will almost always result in a decrease of convenience.


>>But if I take a dozen pictures per day,
>> every day, one set of alkalines will last FAR longer than NiMH.
>
> That's assuming you refuse to switch between two sets of batteries every so
> often.

How can one be so dense? Of course if you are allowed to resort
to the use of a charger, rechargeable batteries will last far
longer. But when you used the word "FAR", emphasizing it in caps,
you meant that NiMH provided FAR more shots per charge than
alkalines. When I show how in some cases you can get better life
from alkalines than from NiMH (on a single charge) you then whine
about refusing "to switch between two sets of batteries". But that
completely missed the point. With my camera (not ANY camera, not
yours, probably not the ones owned by most newbies, but mine, and a
several other models and brands) I can take it on a trip lasting a
couple of weeks and be confident that a fresh set of alkalines will
allow me to take a dozen pictures each day. If I used NiMH instead,
I wouldn't be as confident, and would either take two sets of fully
charged batteries, or one set and a charger. Is that too hard to
understand?


> If you are intent on using them only occasionally, or until they either die
> or are thrown away, then alkalines are STILL the expensive alternative.
> Ever hear of a trickle charger? Two sets of batteries...one in the
> camera...one kept in the charger always.
> --No more wasted alkaline money...no more trash.
> If you feel compelled to fill your trash with disposable batteries, then
> feel free.

While NiMH is generally more cost effective, I already showed
above that this isn't always the case. No more batteries to throw
in the trash that if NiMH were used. That in some cases of light
usage a single set of alkaline batteries could last several years
and take just as many pictures as a single set of rechargeables. I
can get a set of alkalines (as I already mentioned) for less than a
dollar. I can't get a charger and either one or two sets of
rechargeables for anywhere near that price. One could accurately
say that the cost of NiMH batteries would be FAR higher. By the
way, since you obviously don't know any better, keeping batteries on
trickle charge for months at a time is a good way to ruin them. But
if you feel compelled to use NiMH batteries inappropriately feel
free to do so. But then it's your trash that will get your
rechargeables before their customary time.


> As I've said--For those who refuse to swap batteries occasionally, then
> alkalines will work for them.

But I've never relied on such people to make my case. It's just a
'straw man' argument you're using to deflect attention from real
situations where any reasonable person might be better off using
alkalines. Keep repeating your mantra if it makes you feel better.
But it doesn't make you look better.


> NiMh batteries sit in my flash sometimes for weeks with only occasional use,
> and I don't have to keep swapping them out as you seem to imply. Unless
> you're storing NiMh batteries for many weeks, they should retain plenty of
> charge to keep most devices rolling.

You've very carefully chosen 'weeks' when that's not the time
frame I've been talking about. Is your memory so poor that you
can't recall that I've been talking about people that use their
cameras very infrequently? Sometimes once or twice each year.
Sometimes less. I'm NOT talking about your usage. For the way you
use your equipment, NiMH is fine. Nobody is trying to convince you
that you'd be better off using alkalines. You wouldn't be. So
don't use such a silly argument unless you really want to look
foolish. If anyone only used their camera a couple times each year,
you'd better believe they'd need to swap their rechargeable NiMH
batteries for another set, whether the batteries were for the camera
or for their flash.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:26:48 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:524cd15k42m8fn24kc3vfefi2rst5tnoka@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:01:26 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider DOUBLE the
>> life, and...
>> ...you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
>> :) 
>> Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around, but I
>> suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life and
>> comparatively zero cost.
>
> You're not THINKING.

<Unbelievably long rant snipped>

There are some instances where alkalines work well.
For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
Over and out.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 10:04:46 AM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>> You're not THINKING.
>
> <Unbelievably long rant snipped>

You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.


> There are some instances where alkalines work well.
> For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
> Over and out.

Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
starting to wonder . . . :) 
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 10:04:47 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:lpdcd1h3ao0k4jn5f3gdhsn2oqisv8o2ma@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>> You're not THINKING.
>>
>> <Unbelievably long rant snipped>
>
> You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
> involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
> least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.

Don't mistake an exit for a concession...
:) 

>> There are some instances where alkalines work well.
>> For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
>> Over and out.
>
> Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
> at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
> starting to wonder . . . :) 

Now that's hitting below the belt!
PLONK!
:) 
(kidding)
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 10:04:48 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:o PqBe.8820$Eo.8041@fed1read04...
>
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:lpdcd1h3ao0k4jn5f3gdhsn2oqisv8o2ma@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You're not THINKING.
>>>
>>> <Unbelievably long rant snipped>
>>
>> You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
>> involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
>> least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.
>
> Don't mistake an exit for a concession...
> :) 
>
>>> There are some instances where alkalines work well.
>>> For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
>>> Over and out.
>>
>> Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
>> at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
>> starting to wonder . . . :) 
>
> Now that's hitting below the belt!
> PLONK!
> :) 
> (kidding)

BTW--Don't pay to much attention to me tonight...I'm in a bad mood...
Being told I'm wrong when I'm always right...every
time...without-any-exception-cuz-I'm-perfect really makes me grumpy.
:) 
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 10:04:49 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:cRqBe.8821$Eo.1871@fed1read04...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:o PqBe.8820$Eo.8041@fed1read04...
>>
>> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
>> news:lpdcd1h3ao0k4jn5f3gdhsn2oqisv8o2ma@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You're not THINKING.
>>>>
>>>> <Unbelievably long rant snipped>
>>>
>>> You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
>>> involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
>>> least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.
>>
>> Don't mistake an exit for a concession...
>> :) 
>>
>>>> There are some instances where alkalines work well.
>>>> For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
>>>> Over and out.
>>>
>>> Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
>>> at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
>>> starting to wonder . . . :) 
>>
>> Now that's hitting below the belt!
>> PLONK!
>> :) 
>> (kidding)
>
> BTW--Don't pay to much attention to me tonight...I'm in a bad mood...
> Being told I'm wrong when I'm always right...every
> time...without-any-exception-cuz-I'm-perfect really makes me grumpy.
> :) 

Again... K-I-D-D-I-N-G-!-!
(Just making sure... Things are tough around here lately...)
You made valid points, ASSAR...
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 10:04:49 AM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:09:16 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>BTW--Don't pay to much attention to me tonight...I'm in a bad mood...
>Being told I'm wrong when I'm always right...every
>time...without-any-exception-cuz-I'm-perfect really makes me grumpy.
>:) 

You guys who *think* you're always right give those of us who really
are always right a bad name.
:-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 2:02:29 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:32:43 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
>>> In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
>>> AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines.
>>
>> In my limited experience the NiMH lasted 5 - 50 times longer. It
>> depends on the camera.
>
>>> so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
>>> last 5 or 10 times as long.
>
> Evidently your experience was limited to older cameras that were
> *real* battery hogs.

Canon 20D and a not too old Olympus.


> Unless I'm missing something, we're saying
> pretty much the same thing. That said, I'd like to know what camera
> got 50 times longer life from NiMH AAs than from alkalines. I've
> never heard of any approaching differences of that magnitude.
> Additionally, the camera(s) most likely to be the one(s) you're
> referring to would probably have been made 5 or more years ago, when
> alkalines were substantially the same as today's, but NiMH
> capacities were significantly less, 1,300mah and 1,100mah not being
> uncommon.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:33:55 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:02:29 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

>> Evidently your experience was limited to older cameras that were
>> *real* battery hogs.
>
> Canon 20D and a not too old Olympus.

The 20D uses alkaline AA batteries? I thought it used a BP-511A
lithium rechargeable. Are you talking about the use of an accessory
handle or battery pack to hold the AA cells? And please let us know
how many shots you're talking about, since that 50:1 ratio is still
literally unbelievable without some figures to back it up. With
your lack of detailed information I can only assume something like 6
AA alkalines in some kind of external battery holder, and I'd guess
that it would be good for several hundreds of shots if the internal
flash was used. Probably several thousand if the flash was
disabled. And you're saying that on a single charge, NiMH AA cells
would provide 50 times the life? You do realize that this works out
to a range of roughly 10,000 to 100,000 shots per charge.

It would also be nice if you were more specific than "a not too
old Olympus". A model number would be nice, as well as the number
of shots you're talking about. After all, this Olympus camera could
easily turn out to be another one that doesn't use AA batteries.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:57:48 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:09:16 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> BTW--Don't pay to much attention to me tonight...I'm in a bad mood...
> Being told I'm wrong when I'm always right...every
> time...without-any-exception-cuz-I'm-perfect really makes me grumpy.
> :) 

And I've been in a bad mood the last several days, but for a
different reason. Hint: you could call me "sneezy", but please, not
"dopey".


> Again... K-I-D-D-I-N-G-!-!
> (Just making sure... Things are tough around here lately...)

Not to worry. Humor doesn't often get by me unnoticed, just as I
noticed that mine didn't get by you. :) 
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:59:34 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:50:24 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> You guys who *think* you're always right give those of us who really
> are always right a bad name.
> :-)

Why you're right. Again, as usual. :) 
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 5:03:01 PM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:NK-dna5Ai_zJ70vfRVn-qA@giganews.com...
> ASAAR wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:01:26 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider
>>> DOUBLE the life, and...
>>> ...you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
>>> :) 
>>> Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around,
>>> but I suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life
>>> and comparatively zero cost.
>>
>> You're not THINKING. Are you here only to try to win arguments
>> even when you're mistaken?
>
> I think many of
> you estimable guys
> should step back and contemplate
> what it is you are investing in,
> and why.
>
> This is JUST A NEWSGROUP.
>
> If what you plan to reap from all this is increased knowledge and skill,
> your expressive techniques are inapprropriate. If you desire that others
> appreciate your knowledge and benefit from it, it'll be worth subtracting
> the smugness and contentiousness from your posts.
>
> If your desired outcome is to demonstrate loss of perspective and myriad
> latent and fully blossomed personality disorders, and solicit
> someone-anyone-to please take control and drag you off to therapy, you've
> pretty much accomplished the demonstration part.
>
> Time to tone it down and [kindly be quiet].

-Excuse my editing of your quote...
:) 
Actually, I agree with this, and you'll note that I did just that.
It's easy to get carried away over little things...
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 5:05:26 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:QxzBe.8841$Eo.8330@fed1read04...
>
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:NK-dna5Ai_zJ70vfRVn-qA@giganews.com...
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:01:26 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider
>>>> DOUBLE the life, and...
>>>> ...you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
>>>> :) 
>>>> Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around,
>>>> but I suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life
>>>> and comparatively zero cost.
>>>
>>> You're not THINKING. Are you here only to try to win arguments
>>> even when you're mistaken?
>>
>> I think many of
>> you estimable guys
>> should step back and contemplate
>> what it is you are investing in,
>> and why.
>>
>> This is JUST A NEWSGROUP.
>>
>> If what you plan to reap from all this is increased knowledge and skill,
>> your expressive techniques are inapprropriate. If you desire that others
>> appreciate your knowledge and benefit from it, it'll be worth subtracting
>> the smugness and contentiousness from your posts.
>>
>> If your desired outcome is to demonstrate loss of perspective and myriad
>> latent and fully blossomed personality disorders, and solicit
>> someone-anyone-to please take control and drag you off to therapy, you've
>> pretty much accomplished the demonstration part.
>>
>> Time to tone it down and [kindly be quiet].
>
> -Excuse my editing of your quote...
> :) 
> Actually, I agree with this, and you'll note that I did just that.
> It's easy to get carried away over little things...

Actually, we both ended the thread positively...
-But your point is taken, Frank.
July 14, 2005 5:29:39 PM

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

Tony Hwang wrote:

> Bacchus wrote:
>
>> I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
>> Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for
>> about
>> 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
>>
>> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
>> batteries you would buy in the store?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi,
> I think something wrong with your camera. I never saw digital camera
> eating up batteries that fast.
> Tony
I have. My Casio QVR-41 chewed through a pair of AA alkaline batteries
in about a dozen shots - 20 if you were lucky. A pair of 2300 mAh NiMH
last about 100 shots between charges.
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 6:51:24 PM

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

> Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
> 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
>
> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
> batteries you would buy in the store?

A lot longer.

HEre's a few differences.

1) Alkaline batteries, except for a few of the latest from Panasonic
(Oxyride), Duracell (digital), etc., usually drop pretty quickly in
voltage after they've been in use in a digital camera. As a result, the
voltage drops below some threshold (eg. 1.1V or whatever, varies
depending on camera), and there's not enough voltage to run the
electronics in the camera, and the camera stops working (even though
there's enough juice in the batteries to run other devices for hours more).

2) Latest digital-ready alkalines as well as LiIon AAs both maintain
this high voltage level throughout a longer part of the battery life,
thus making them a sensible replacement for rechargables if you dont'
have any charged ones handy.

3) Rechargables are the BEST way to run most digicams that use AAs.
Their chemistry (nimh) typically have a very flat voltage curve for most
of their life, thus allowing the camera to operate for a long time vs.
regular AAs.

4) Most of the latest, greatest rechargables, eg. the Rayovac 15
minutes sold at Walmart stores, charge up in only 15 minutes, run
forever, and are excellent choices. The chargers come in 4-cell units,
but the 2AA all-in-one Rayovac 15 minute charger is what I prefer and
use -- you can charge up so quick before an event, even in only 5
minutes for a partial top-up, that you never have to worry about empty
cells and not enough time to charge up.

Buy at least two sets of 2 AAs so you can swap them in and out,
and they'll typically last you a whole day's worth of shooting.

5) Cheaper cells + chargers that are slower? Yes, there are bargins
- www.fatwallet.com/c/18/ lists them - but really, I prefer the Rayovac
15 minute charger vs. waiting hours for another charger.

6) 2000mAh or higher capacity NiMh AAs are recommended for the
longest runtime. Rayovac 15min AAs qualify.

7) Great for others, too, like portable CD players, etc. that run off
AAs.

----

eg. old FujiFilm 40i would only go about 10-15 minutes max on
alkaline AAs; 2 hours on NiMh AAs.

----

Most newer digicams running off AAs have far better power mgmt
controls so even regular AAs will run you hundreds of shots and hours of
runtime before going. (eg. even a 4 or 5MP $99 3x zoom FujiFilm digicam
nowadays will run 2+ hours and hundreds of shots off alkaline AAs.)

Reason is lower power consumption white LED backlights and better
electronics.

The Li-Ion rechargable cameras do even better, with 300+ shots and 4+
hours of runtimes (eg. Sony DSC-P200; Fujifilm F10, etc.).
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:28:43 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:02:29 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
>>> Evidently your experience was limited to older cameras that were
>>> *real* battery hogs.
>>
>> Canon 20D and a not too old Olympus.
>
> The 20D uses alkaline AA batteries? I thought it used a BP-511A
> lithium rechargeable. Are you talking about the use of an accessory
> handle or battery pack to hold the AA cells?

Exactly. The pack will hold one, or two 511's or a set of AA's.

> And please let us know
> how many shots you're talking about, since that 50:1 ratio is still
> literally unbelievable without some figures to back it up. With
> your lack of detailed information I can only assume something like 6
> AA alkalines in some kind of external battery holder, and I'd guess
> that it would be good for several hundreds of shots

No more like a dozen or so shoots. My guess is even with a full load of
AA, the voltage is very marginal and it is shutting down when the batteries
themselves may only have just the edge taken off. I was hoping and
expecting more, but I normally use the 511's and the AA's for use in
emergencies are just an added extra, even if it is not a good extra.

> if the internal
> flash was used. Probably several thousand if the flash was
> disabled. And you're saying that on a single charge, NiMH AA cells
> would provide 50 times the life? You do realize that this works out
> to a range of roughly 10,000 to 100,000 shots per charge.
>
> It would also be nice if you were more specific than "a not too
> old Olympus". A model number would be nice, as well as the number
> of shots you're talking about. After all, this Olympus camera could
> easily turn out to be another one that doesn't use AA batteries.

The Olympus used only AA cells. I quickly gave up on alks and switched
to Ni's only. I don't remember the model number.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 2:32:13 AM

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

In article <RomdnbUqKozFP0jfRVn-jQ@rogers.com>,
"Bacchus" <kdoye2112@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
> Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
> 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
>
> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
> batteries you would buy in the store?
>
Take most people's advice and skip Alkalines and NiCads in digital
cameras. Use NiMH all the time - on vacation I get about 500 pixs on
average with 4 2100 NiMH's in my Fuji S7000.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:55:21 AM

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:43:54 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

>>>> I was hoping and expecting more, but I normally use the 511's and
>>>> the AA's for use in emergencies are just an added extra, even if it
>>>> is not a good extra.
>>>
>>> Well, in that case you can hardly blame the alkaline batteries.
>>> There's a serious design problem with the battery holder.
>>> BTW, have you checked to see what kind of AA battery life other
>>> D20 owners get, to make sure that your battery holder isn't somehow
>>> defective?

It turns out that there was a design flaw.


> Thanks for the suggestion. That answer might be interesting, but I am
> not really all that worried about it since I would seldom if ever want to
> use Alks.

Since you said you'd use alkalines to take care of emergencies,
they could be a worthwhile extra, instead of a "not a good extra".

It sounds as if you have one of the problem battery holders, and
the fix helps not only when using alkaline AA batteries but NiMH and
the BP-511 as well (the announcement wording is slightly unclear).

From dpreview:

> Canon offers to repair DSLR Battery Grip
> Canon USA has announced that customers with the Battery Grip BG-E2
> used with the EOS 20D and 20Da, and a certain serial number range can
> return their grip/magazine for a free repair/replacement. This is due to a
> cases where even with fully charged batteries (exclusive battery pack or
> NiMH battery) or unused AA size batteries, only a few shots can be taken
> or 'bc' is displayed immediately. (08:50 GMT)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071801canon_battery...


> Olympus posts E-300 firmware v1.3
> Olympus has today posted firmware version 1.3 for the FourThirds DSLR
> the E-300. The update provideds enhanced exposure metering stability,
> adds a button timer, two new underwater scene programmes and changes
> the start-up process for future lenses. (03:05 GMT)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071901oly-e300fw13....
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 2:33:04 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:43:54 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
>>>>> I was hoping and expecting more, but I normally use the 511's and
>>>>> the AA's for use in emergencies are just an added extra, even if
>>>>> it is not a good extra.
>>>>
>>>> Well, in that case you can hardly blame the alkaline batteries.
>>>> There's a serious design problem with the battery holder.
>>>> BTW, have you checked to see what kind of AA battery life other
>>>> D20 owners get, to make sure that your battery holder isn't somehow
>>>> defective?
>
> It turns out that there was a design flaw.
>
>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. That answer might be interesting,
>> but I am not really all that worried about it since I would seldom
>> if ever want to use Alks.
>
> Since you said you'd use alkalines to take care of emergencies,
> they could be a worthwhile extra, instead of a "not a good extra".
>
> It sounds as if you have one of the problem battery holders, and
> the fix helps not only when using alkaline AA batteries but NiMH and
> the BP-511 as well (the announcement wording is slightly unclear).

Thanks. I will look into that idea.


>
> From dpreview:
>
>> Canon offers to repair DSLR Battery Grip
>> Canon USA has announced that customers with the Battery Grip BG-E2
>> used with the EOS 20D and 20Da, and a certain serial number range can
>> return their grip/magazine for a free repair/replacement. This is
>> due to a cases where even with fully charged batteries (exclusive
>> battery pack or NiMH battery) or unused AA size batteries, only a
>> few shots can be taken or 'bc' is displayed immediately. (08:50 GMT)
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071801canon_battery...
>
>
>> Olympus posts E-300 firmware v1.3
>> Olympus has today posted firmware version 1.3 for the FourThirds DSLR
>> the E-300. The update provideds enhanced exposure metering stability,
>> adds a button timer, two new underwater scene programmes and changes
>> the start-up process for future lenses. (03:05 GMT)
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071901oly-e300fw13....

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:55:06 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:43:54 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
>
>>>>> I was hoping and expecting more, but I normally use the 511's and
>>>>> the AA's for use in emergencies are just an added extra, even if
>>>>> it is not a good extra.
>>>>
>>>> Well, in that case you can hardly blame the alkaline batteries.
>>>> There's a serious design problem with the battery holder.
>>>> BTW, have you checked to see what kind of AA battery life other
>>>> D20 owners get, to make sure that your battery holder isn't somehow
>>>> defective?
>
> It turns out that there was a design flaw.

Yes, mine was on the recall list and is now been shipped back for
repair/replacment. Tanks again for the information.


>
>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. That answer might be interesting,
>> but I am not really all that worried about it since I would seldom
>> if ever want to use Alks.
>
> Since you said you'd use alkalines to take care of emergencies,
> they could be a worthwhile extra, instead of a "not a good extra".
>
> It sounds as if you have one of the problem battery holders, and
> the fix helps not only when using alkaline AA batteries but NiMH and
> the BP-511 as well (the announcement wording is slightly unclear).
>
> From dpreview:
>
>> Canon offers to repair DSLR Battery Grip
>> Canon USA has announced that customers with the Battery Grip BG-E2
>> used with the EOS 20D and 20Da, and a certain serial number range can
>> return their grip/magazine for a free repair/replacement. This is
>> due to a cases where even with fully charged batteries (exclusive
>> battery pack or NiMH battery) or unused AA size batteries, only a
>> few shots can be taken or 'bc' is displayed immediately. (08:50 GMT)
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071801canon_battery...
>
>
>> Olympus posts E-300 firmware v1.3
>> Olympus has today posted firmware version 1.3 for the FourThirds DSLR
>> the E-300. The update provideds enhanced exposure metering stability,
>> adds a button timer, two new underwater scene programmes and changes
>> the start-up process for future lenses. (03:05 GMT)
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071901oly-e300fw13....

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:26:59 PM

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:43:54 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I was hoping and expecting more, but I normally use the 511's and
>>>>>> the AA's for use in emergencies are just an added extra, even if
>>>>>> it is not a good extra.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, in that case you can hardly blame the alkaline batteries.
>>>>> There's a serious design problem with the battery holder.
>>>>> BTW, have you checked to see what kind of AA battery life other
>>>>> D20 owners get, to make sure that your battery holder isn't
>>>>> somehow defective?
>>
>> It turns out that there was a design flaw.
>
> Yes, mine was on the recall list and is now been shipped back for
> repair/replacment. Tanks again for the information.
>
>
>>
>>

Well it did not take long to get my battery grip back. A few days after
sending it in I got mail saying they received it and that it appeared to
meet the requirements to need repair and was set to be repaired. If they
did not find any other issues (like water damage) they expected to have it
completed within 10 days. The repaired grip arrived in the mail the next
day. Now it is functioning as I had expected it to when I bought it. I can
now use it as a battery back up system, so on my next trip I can leave the
charger and the bother of finding plug adjusters for foreign plugs at home
and just buy any AA Alks if any are needed.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:49:31 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:26:59 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

> Well it did not take long to get my battery grip back. A few days after
> sending it in I got mail saying they received it and that it appeared to
> meet the requirements to need repair and was set to be repaired. If they
> did not find any other issues (like water damage) they expected to have it
> completed within 10 days. The repaired grip arrived in the mail the next
> day. Now it is functioning as I had expected it to when I bought it. I can
> now use it as a battery back up system, so on my next trip I can leave the
> charger and the bother of finding plug adjusters for foreign plugs at home
> and just buy any AA Alks if any are needed.

That's good to hear. But as the expression goes, "trust nobody".
:)  If might be a good idea to at least once try using a set of AA
batteries (using the lithium battery as your backup). I'd consider
that learning roughly how long you could expect the batteries to
last in an emergency would be well worth the cost of one set of AAs.
Well, maybe two sets. One using the cameras flash extensively and
one without.
!