Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"AAA", alkaline and NiMh

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:15:55 PM

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

I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go camera.
It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.

So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear God!
I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as recommended
by the user's manual and the salesmen.
HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30 second
videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And the
batteries are in their first cycle!!
I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that the
difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
"AA".

More about : aaa alkaline nimh

Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:15:56 PM

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

"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
>I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
>lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
>camera. It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>
> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
> God!
> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as recommended
> by the user's manual and the salesmen.
> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30 second
> videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And the
> batteries are in their first cycle!!
> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
> the difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than
> with "AA".

You will get significantly better performance with NiMh batteries, provided
you don't let them sit for weeks un-used. They are far better performers
when kept fully charged. Alkaline's only real benefit is shelf-life, and
availability in a pinch (for when you can't charge your NiMh batteries.

Honestly though, AAA batteries are so tiny, that I can't see the wisdom in
designing a camera around them... :(  Surely the exrtra size would be
minimal compared with the far better power numbers offered by AA... But
there you go... You'll be pleasantly surprised by NiMh.

Mark
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 11:06:39 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:p 67Oe.6270$Us5.4018@fed1read02...
>
> "Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
>>I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
>>lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
>>camera. It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>>
>> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
>> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
>> God!
>> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as
>> recommended by the user's manual and the salesmen.
>> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30
>> second videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And
>> the batteries are in their first cycle!!
>> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
>> the difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than
>> with "AA".
>
> You will get significantly better performance with NiMh batteries,
> provided you don't let them sit for weeks un-used. They are far better
> performers when kept fully charged. Alkaline's only real benefit is
> shelf-life, and availability in a pinch (for when you can't charge your
> NiMh batteries.
>
> Honestly though, AAA batteries are so tiny, that I can't see the wisdom in
> designing a camera around them... :( 

I think it is relative to the current consumption of the camera, its overall
design and the available features. No zoom and no auto focus along with a
smaller LCD surely draw less power out of the batteries. Friends of mine
with bigger cameras using "AA" cannot take much more than a hundred of
pictures per charge, some even less, some more...

Don

> Surely the exrtra size would be minimal compared with the far better power
> numbers offered by AA... But there you go... You'll be pleasantly
> surprised by NiMh.
>
> Mark
>
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 11:06:40 PM

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

"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4O7Oe.7147$Qh7.198455@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:p 67Oe.6270$Us5.4018@fed1read02...
>>
>> "Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
>>>I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
>>>lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
>>>camera. It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>>>
>>> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
>>> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
>>> God!
>>> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as
>>> recommended by the user's manual and the salesmen.
>>> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30
>>> second videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And
>>> the batteries are in their first cycle!!
>>> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
>>> the difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than
>>> with "AA".
>>
>> You will get significantly better performance with NiMh batteries,
>> provided you don't let them sit for weeks un-used. They are far better
>> performers when kept fully charged. Alkaline's only real benefit is
>> shelf-life, and availability in a pinch (for when you can't charge your
>> NiMh batteries.
>>
>> Honestly though, AAA batteries are so tiny, that I can't see the wisdom
>> in designing a camera around them... :( 
>
> I think it is relative to the current consumption of the camera, its
> overall design and the available features. No zoom and no auto focus along
> with a smaller LCD surely draw less power out of the batteries. Friends of
> mine with bigger cameras using "AA" cannot take much more than a hundred
> of pictures per charge, some even less, some more...
>
> Don

Yes. Most people don't shoot digital camera with none of the above.
If you do, then more "power" to ya! (yuk-yuk-yuk...batam-TING!)
:) 
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:30:00 AM

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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:20:41 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>Honestly though, AAA batteries are so tiny, that I can't see the wisdom in
>designing a camera around them... :(  Surely the exrtra size would be
>minimal compared with the far better power numbers offered by AA...

If my Sony U30 had AA batteries there'd be no space left in
the case for the camera. Some cameras are *small* ;-)

--
Regards

John Bean
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:30:01 AM

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

"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3vvhg1prigsrst23n5d0laa0vibie1vbqg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:20:41 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>Honestly though, AAA batteries are so tiny, that I can't see the wisdom in
>>designing a camera around them... :(  Surely the exrtra size would be
>>minimal compared with the far better power numbers offered by AA...
>
> If my Sony U30 had AA batteries there'd be no space left in
> the case for the camera. Some cameras are *small* ;-)

Ya, but I wasn't talking about toy cameras...
:) 
August 22, 2005 6:08:54 AM

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

"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net:

> I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed
> focus lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an
> anywhere-I-go camera. It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size
> and weight.
>
> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
> God! I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as
> recommended by the user's manual and the salesmen.
> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30
> second videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing.
> And the batteries are in their first cycle!!
> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me
> that the difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with
> "AAA" than with "AA".

AAA Alkaline cells are very small and yet perform well, unless you try to
use them in a high drain device. They work well in remote controls and
small torches, they are not really suitable for digital cameras though.

If you need some emergency batteries with a long shelf life then get some
lithium cells, otherwise just stick to the NiMH cells.

On www.dpreview.com there are some cameras that can take over 500 shots on
4 x AA cells, but that would add too much weight and bulk to a small
camera.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:08:55 AM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:54 GMT, MarkH wrote:

> AAA Alkaline cells are very small and yet perform well, unless you try to
> use them in a high drain device. They work well in remote controls and
> small torches, they are not really suitable for digital cameras though.

The aren't suitable for most digital cameras. But there's no
reason why they wouldn't work exceedingly well in low drain digital
cameras. There are a number of them that are fixed focus, and it
should be possible to have cameras using AAA cells that can take
many hundreds of shots per set of batteries.


> If you need some emergency batteries with a long shelf life then get some
> lithium cells, otherwise just stick to the NiMH cells.

Lithiums are the best, but they aren't especially economical.
Alkalines have about 1/2 the shelf life which amounts to about 8
years. That should be more than adequate for most people.


> On www.dpreview.com there are some cameras that can take over
> 500 shots on 4 x AA cells, but that would add too much weight and
> bulk to a small camera.

My camera uses 4 AA cells (a Fuji) and could probably take 1000
shots if the flash isn't used. When the flash is used it can take
over 200 shots. With Fuji's newest sensor, the same exposures could
be made with a flash that uses less than 1/2 the battery power
needed by current models. This would allow nearly 500 shots per set
of AAAs. Replace them with AAA cells and you're still above 200
shots. And put them in a camera that has no mechanical zoom and the
number of available shots can only go up. And of course it they're
replaced by NiMH AAA batteries, the number of shots nearly doubles
again.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:23:05 AM

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

"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
> I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
> lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
camera.
> It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>
> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
God!
> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as recommended
> by the user's manual and the salesmen.
> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30 second
> videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And the
> batteries are in their first cycle!!
> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
the
> difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
> "AA".
>
>
>
As others have said, The Alkaline battery does not handle high current loads
well. In fact. after removing the ones that seem to be run down from the
camera and put it in another device, such as a remote control, they will
continue to have a full life. No sense in wasting them.

As the digital camera manufacturers improve the power performance of their
cameras, we may see a trend of more conventional power sources being used
(AA, AAA batteries) instead of the Li-ion batteries that are often
proprietary, expensive (especially if you want a backup battery) and seem to
lose capacity after two or three years.
-S
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:23:05 AM

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

"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
> I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
> lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
camera.
> It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>
> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
God!
> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as recommended
> by the user's manual and the salesmen.
> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30 second
> videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And the
> batteries are in their first cycle!!
> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
the
> difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
> "AA".
>
>
>
As others have said, The Alkaline battery does not handle high current loads
well. In fact. after removing the ones that seem to be run down from the
camera and put it in another device, such as a remote control, they will
continue to have a full life. No sense in wasting them.

As the digital camera manufacturers improve the power performance of their
cameras, we may see a trend of more conventional power sources being used
(AA, AAA batteries) instead of the Li-ion batteries that are often
proprietary, expensive (especially if you want a backup battery) and seem to
lose capacity after two or three years.
-S
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:23:05 AM

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

"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
> I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
> lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
camera.
> It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>
> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
God!
> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as recommended
> by the user's manual and the salesmen.
> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30 second
> videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And the
> batteries are in their first cycle!!
> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
the
> difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
> "AA".
>
>
>
As others have said, The Alkaline battery does not handle high current loads
well. In fact. after removing the ones that seem to be run down from the
camera and put it in another device, such as a remote control, they will
continue to have a full life. No sense in wasting them.

As the digital camera manufacturers improve the power performance of their
cameras, we may see a trend of more conventional power sources being used
(AA, AAA batteries) instead of the Li-ion batteries that are often
proprietary, expensive (especially if you want a backup battery) and seem to
lose capacity after two or three years.
-S
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:23:05 AM

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

"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
> I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
> lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
camera.
> It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>
> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
God!
> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as recommended
> by the user's manual and the salesmen.
> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30 second
> videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And the
> batteries are in their first cycle!!
> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
the
> difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
> "AA".
>
>
>
As others have said, The Alkaline battery does not handle high current loads
well. In fact. after removing the ones that seem to be run down from the
camera and put it in another device, such as a remote control, they will
continue to have a full life. No sense in wasting them.

As the digital camera manufacturers improve the power performance of their
cameras, we may see a trend of more conventional power sources being used
(AA, AAA batteries) instead of the Li-ion batteries that are often
proprietary, expensive (especially if you want a backup battery) and seem to
lose capacity after two or three years.
-S
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:02:39 PM

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

In article <x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net>, Don Mudd
<dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that the
> difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
> "AA".

I've seen this with older digitals. I THINK it has less to do with
total energy in the battery than the way the camera uses it, and with
the way the camera detects a depleted battery.

The camera I had would shoot about 8 frames before complaining the
alkalines were low, even though the manual said alkalines were OK.
NiCads gave about 80, and lithium about 100 or so.

There's a difference in total energy, but not THAT much. The alakaline
voltage probably dropped too much under load, and the camera didn't
like it. Which leads me to believe that disposable alkalines are not a
good digital power source, despite the fact that so many people seems
to prefer them...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:19:30 PM

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

"Scott Schuckert" <not@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220820050902390513%not@aol.com...
> In article <x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net>, Don Mudd
> <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
>> the
>> difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
>> "AA".
>
> I've seen this with older digitals. I THINK it has less to do with
> total energy in the battery than the way the camera uses it, and with
> the way the camera detects a depleted battery.
>
> The camera I had would shoot about 8 frames before complaining the
> alkalines were low, even though the manual said alkalines were OK.
> NiCads gave about 80, and lithium about 100 or so.
>
> There's a difference in total energy, but not THAT much. The alakaline
> voltage probably dropped too much under load, and the camera didn't
> like it. Which leads me to believe that disposable alkalines are not a
> good digital power source, despite the fact that so many people seems
> to prefer them..

I've followed this ng for at least a couple of years and I never got the
impression there was any preference for Alkalines. If size and weight aren't
critical, NiMH give good service, particularly when shooting many pics in a
short period (vacation, etc.). I tend to not use the camera (A95) that much
and cells are in camera for upto 3 months, at which point I'm probably down
to about 150 shots or less, as opposed to 250 plus when used within a 3 week
period.
Dave Cohen
August 22, 2005 11:19:33 PM

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

In article <430a08c0$1_1@newsfeed.slurp.net>, SimonLW <anon@anon.com>
writes
>"Don Mudd" <dmudd22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:x27Oe.19564$7b7.182646@weber.videotron.net...
>> I got a small 4 megapixels digicam with no optical zoom and fixed focus
>> lenses. The camera weigths only 100g so I use it as an anywhere-I-go
>camera.
>> It is powered by two "AAA" to keep down the size and weight.
>>
>> So I put two fresh alkalines (the premium type...) and I could hardly
>> shoot... 10 pictures before the camera warned me for low battery. Dear
>God!
>> I then pessimisticly tried two freshly recharged 850mA NiMh as recommended
>> by the user's manual and the salesmen.
>> HUGE difference !I could easily take... over 100 pictures, a few 30 second
>> videos along with some menus digging and pictures reviewing. And the
>> batteries are in their first cycle!!
>> I knew NiMh have a longer autonomy but that much... It seems to me that
>the
>> difference between NiMh and alkaline is even greater with "AAA" than with
>> "AA".
>>
>>
>>
>As others have said, The Alkaline battery does not handle high current loads
>well. In fact. after removing the ones that seem to be run down from the
>camera and put it in another device, such as a remote control, they will
>continue to have a full life. No sense in wasting them.

The problem is that alkaline cells have a higher internal resistance
(Ri) which reduce the terminal voltages causing some equipment to give a
low battery power (more properly voltage) warning before it is
exhausted. In fact the Ri can rise with a current pulse and take several
seconds to return.

>As the digital camera manufacturers improve the power performance of their
>cameras, we may see a trend of more conventional power sources being used
>(AA, AAA batteries) instead of the Li-ion batteries that are often
>proprietary, expensive (especially if you want a backup battery) and seem to
>lose capacity after two or three years.

They will make the cameras smaller or add more power consuming
functions. I.E. larger LCDs with a brighter backlight that can be used
in Sunlight.
--
Ian G8ILZ
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:34:58 AM

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

In article <62mOe.228$FW1.145@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Dave
Cohen <dave@example.net> wrote:

> I've followed this ng for at least a couple of years and I never got the
> impression there was any preference for Alkalines.

I may have overestimated, but there always seem to be people looking
for recommendations on a camera; and a typical requirement is for AA
batteries. I interpreted this as disposable batteries; do you think
they all meant rechargable AA's (as opposed to dedicated packs)?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:18:53 AM

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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:34:58 -0400, Scott Schuckert wrote:

> I may have overestimated, but there always seem to be people looking
> for recommendations on a camera; and a typical requirement is for AA
> batteries. I interpreted this as disposable batteries; do you think
> they all meant rechargable AA's (as opposed to dedicated packs)?

Yes. Since the dawn of time NiMH batteries have generally
performed well in cameras. Alkaline AA batteries on the other hand
have provided fair to horrible performance, but that started
changing about a year or two ago. There are now some cameras that
perform extremely well with alkalines. The early Canon Powershot
S-series cameras (before they switched to lithiums) used proprietary
batteries that essentially contained 3 NiMH AAA cells. Had they
used real AAA batteries the camera could have been made a little
slimmer, and replacements could be had for about $5 vs. about $50
for Canon's proprietary battery. And in the time that I've had the
camera, NiMH AA batteries have increased in capacity from about
1300mah to 2600 mah, whereas the capacity of Canon's proprietary
battery has remained the same.

Canon's charger (which is good for nothing else) was also much
more expensive than readily available AA/AAA chargers. Third party
versions of Canon's batteries are now available for less money, but
they're still considerably overpriced. And eventually even these
batteries will no longer be produced, but AA/AAA NiMH batteries will
still be available.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:16:59 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:54 GMT, MarkH wrote:
>
>> AAA Alkaline cells are very small and yet perform well, unless you
>> try to use them in a high drain device. They work well in remote
>> controls and small torches, they are not really suitable for digital
>> cameras though.
>
> The aren't suitable for most digital cameras. But there's no
> reason why they wouldn't work exceedingly well in low drain digital
> cameras. There are a number of them that are fixed focus, and it
> should be possible to have cameras using AAA cells that can take
> many hundreds of shots per set of batteries.
>
>
>> If you need some emergency batteries with a long shelf life then get
>> some lithium cells, otherwise just stick to the NiMH cells.
>
> Lithiums are the best, but they aren't especially economical.
> Alkalines have about 1/2 the shelf life which amounts to about 8
> years. That should be more than adequate for most people.
>
>
>> On www.dpreview.com there are some cameras that can take over
>> 500 shots on 4 x AA cells, but that would add too much weight and
>> bulk to a small camera.
>
> My camera uses 4 AA cells (a Fuji) and could probably take 1000
> shots if the flash isn't used. When the flash is used it can take
> over 200 shots. With Fuji's newest sensor, the same exposures could
> be made with a flash that uses less than 1/2 the battery power
> needed by current models. This would allow nearly 500 shots per set
> of AAAs. Replace them with AAA cells and you're still above 200
> shots. And put them in a camera that has no mechanical zoom and the
> number of available shots can only go up. And of course it they're
> replaced by NiMH AAA batteries, the number of shots nearly doubles
> again.

Same on my fuji too - i have no problem with 4 AAA NiMH batts.

McKev
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:42:43 AM

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

I use the lithium non rechargeables in my digital cameras. I use it
most for trips, vacations, and family events, thus I may take serveral
hundred pictures in a short time and then not use the camera for months.
I have been getting about six to eight months from the lithium nor
rechargeabel. As for expense, it cost about $10 for four AA's.

McKev wrote:

> ASAAR wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:08:54 GMT, MarkH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AAA Alkaline cells are very small and yet perform well, unless you
>>>try to use them in a high drain device. They work well in remote
>>>controls and small torches, they are not really suitable for digital
>>>cameras though.
>>
>> The aren't suitable for most digital cameras. But there's no
>>reason why they wouldn't work exceedingly well in low drain digital
>>cameras. There are a number of them that are fixed focus, and it
>>should be possible to have cameras using AAA cells that can take
>>many hundreds of shots per set of batteries.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If you need some emergency batteries with a long shelf life then get
>>>some lithium cells, otherwise just stick to the NiMH cells.
>>
>> Lithiums are the best, but they aren't especially economical.
>>Alkalines have about 1/2 the shelf life which amounts to about 8
>>years. That should be more than adequate for most people.
>>
>>
>>
>>>On www.dpreview.com there are some cameras that can take over
>>>500 shots on 4 x AA cells, but that would add too much weight and
>>>bulk to a small camera.
>>
>> My camera uses 4 AA cells (a Fuji) and could probably take 1000
>>shots if the flash isn't used. When the flash is used it can take
>>over 200 shots. With Fuji's newest sensor, the same exposures could
>>be made with a flash that uses less than 1/2 the battery power
>>needed by current models. This would allow nearly 500 shots per set
>>of AAAs. Replace them with AAA cells and you're still above 200
>>shots. And put them in a camera that has no mechanical zoom and the
>>number of available shots can only go up. And of course it they're
>>replaced by NiMH AAA batteries, the number of shots nearly doubles
>>again.
>
>
> Same on my fuji too - i have no problem with 4 AAA NiMH batts.
>
> McKev
>
>
!