Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sony DSC-W5 battery question

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 3:22:07 PM

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

I read that Sony says not to use Litium batteries in this camera (but
alkaline are OK). I don't know that much about batteries but why is this?
Has anyone used lithium?

Thanks
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:22:31 PM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:22:07 -0500, "Wilbur Fry"
<jim@nospam.purdue.edu> wrote:

>I read that Sony says not to use Litium batteries in this camera (but
>alkaline are OK). I don't know that much about batteries but why is this?
>Has anyone used lithium?
>
>Thanks
>
Can you get AA size Lithiums?
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 7:31:08 PM

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

> Can you get AA size Lithiums?

Yes, I used them all the time in an old Olympus digital camera
Related resources
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 12:21:24 AM

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

"Wilbur Fry" <jim@nospam.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:D f2fml$g2o$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...
>
> > Can you get AA size Lithiums?
>
> Yes, I used them all the time in an old Olympus digital camera

Just curious.Are AA lithium rechargeables lighter weight than AA Nimh
rechargeables? I would prefer a camera with AA batteries for easy
battery availability, but cameras with lithium ion appeal to me in other
ways, mainly because they are lightweight to carry around. I don't have
a digital camera, but have studied features of various makes. I was
thinking of the Sony W5 when it comes down a little in price or on sale.
Can I ask your likes and dislikes of the W5?

Cathy
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 12:36:01 AM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:21:24 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> Just curious.Are AA lithium rechargeables lighter weight than AA Nimh
> rechargeables? I would prefer a camera with AA batteries for easy
> battery availability, but cameras with lithium ion appeal to me in other
> ways, mainly because they are lightweight to carry around. I don't have
> a digital camera, but have studied features of various makes. I was
> thinking of the Sony W5 when it comes down a little in price or on sale.
> Can I ask your likes and dislikes of the W5?

Lithium batteries weigh less. But non-rechargeable Lithium AA
batteries also weigh less and can be used in the W5. They cost more
than alkalines but can last much longer. If the number of pictures
you take are modest (a couple of hundred shots per year instead of
per month) then a $5 set of Lithium AA batteries could last several
years and be cheaper in the long run than using rechargeable
batteries, whether they be NiMH or Li-Ion.
August 31, 2005 2:52:58 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:hgu9h1la82iuuse82aogjq76nn73av3kn5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:21:24 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > Just curious.Are AA lithium rechargeables lighter weight than AA
Nimh
> > rechargeables? I would prefer a camera with AA batteries for easy
> > battery availability, but cameras with lithium ion appeal to me in
other
> > ways, mainly because they are lightweight to carry around. I don't
have
> > a digital camera, but have studied features of various makes. I was
> > thinking of the Sony W5 when it comes down a little in price or on
sale.
> > Can I ask your likes and dislikes of the W5?
>
> Lithium batteries weigh less. But non-rechargeable Lithium AA
> batteries also weigh less and can be used in the W5. They cost more
> than alkalines but can last much longer. If the number of pictures
> you take are modest (a couple of hundred shots per year instead of
> per month) then a $5 set of Lithium AA batteries could last several
> years and be cheaper in the long run than using rechargeable
> batteries, whether they be NiMH or Li-Ion.

When I think of it, I am in Canada and can't remember if I have seen
Lithium AA rechargeables, but have seen regular AA lithium batteries. I
am not sure how many photos I would be taking, but if I was on a
holiday, could take a couple of hundred at that time. BTW, when you say
Li-Ion, is that the small round battery? I doubt I would get a camera
that used them, as they are far more expensive here in Toronto than in
the US, but even worse is they are very hard to find.
I just wondered if lithium non-rechargeable AA batteries and lithium
rechargeable AA batteries were lighter weight than Nimh AA batteries, so
a camera using lithium (rechargeable or not) AA's would make the camera
lighter to carry around.
Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:16:40 AM

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

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:52:58 -0400, Mary wrote:

> When I think of it, I am in Canada and can't remember if I have seen
> Lithium AA rechargeables, but have seen regular AA lithium batteries. I
> am not sure how many photos I would be taking, but if I was on a
> holiday, could take a couple of hundred at that time. BTW, when you say
> Li-Ion, is that the small round battery? I doubt I would get a camera
> that used them, as they are far more expensive here in Toronto than in
> the US, but even worse is they are very hard to find.


There are a number of different types of lithium cells that,
depending on their chemistry deliver either approximately 1.5 or 3
volts. As far as I'm aware, the rechargeables are only of the 3
volts/cell type, and are the ones most people mean when they say
Li-ion. The non-rechargeable lithium batteries can be of either
voltage, but as should be obvious, the lithium AA batteries only
provide the lower voltage. Lithium batteries have an advantage over
other types in that they'll work even in low temperatures, but the
Energizer E2 lithium batteries (AA and AAA) are even better, being
rated for operating temperatures as low as 40ยบ below zero.

Older cameras using AA batteries can require so much power that
only rechargeable NiMH should be used. But within the last year or
so much more efficient models have been introduced that can take
from 200 to over 800 shots (w/flash and w/o flash) per set of
alkaline AAs. That might translate to 500 and 2000 shots from a set
of lithium AA batteries, as despite their lighter weight, lithium
batteries have a much greater energy capacity than alkalines.


> I just wondered if lithium non-rechargeable AA batteries and lithium
> rechargeable AA batteries were lighter weight than Nimh AA batteries, so
> a camera using lithium (rechargeable or not) AA's would make the camera
> lighter to carry around.

Yes. But while the lithium batteries weigh much less, when you
add the weight of the camera I don't think the difference would be
that substantial. Unless you think that you'd be taking so many
pictures that by using alkalines it would mean that you'd have to
take one or two extra sets of batteries with you. But that would be
a *lot* of pictures.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:32:44 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:cdbah1hju3745cg3384dhifgtetq3rient@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:52:58 -0400, Mary wrote:

<snip>

> > I just wondered if lithium non-rechargeable AA batteries and lithium
> > rechargeable AA batteries were lighter weight than Nimh AA
batteries, so
> > a camera using lithium (rechargeable or not) AA's would make the
camera
> > lighter to carry around.
>
> Yes. But while the lithium batteries weigh much less, when you
> add the weight of the camera I don't think the difference would be
> that substantial. Unless you think that you'd be taking so many
> pictures that by using alkalines it would mean that you'd have to
> take one or two extra sets of batteries with you. But that would be
> a *lot* of pictures.

If you used lithium AA rechargeables or even non rechargeables,since
they are lighter than Nimh AA rechargeables or even just ordinary AA
alkalines, I would think that it would make the camera a little lighter.
But I think what you are saying is, it wouldn't make it enough lighter
to be that much of an advantage from rechargeable AA Nimh batteries.
Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:47:50 AM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:32:44 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> If you used lithium AA rechargeables or even non rechargeables,since
> they are lighter than Nimh AA rechargeables or even just ordinary AA
> alkalines, I would think that it would make the camera a little lighter.
> But I think what you are saying is, it wouldn't make it enough lighter
> to be that much of an advantage from rechargeable AA Nimh batteries.

Yep. Not referring to you (or anyone in particular for that
matter) but I was imaging someone going to great lengths to shave
off every last ounce of walk-around weight, yet still carrying a
pint or quart of water. <g>

> Thanks.

You're welcome.

BTW, if you aren't familiar with the difference in weight between
alkaline and lithium AAs, just pick up one of the 4-packs of each
from the rack. Purchase not necessary. :) 
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 8:39:08 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:47kah1lq9qe0i57voq3fbu3p58rvrehita@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:32:44 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > If you used lithium AA rechargeables or even non rechargeables,since
> > they are lighter than Nimh AA rechargeables or even just ordinary
AA
> > alkalines, I would think that it would make the camera a little
lighter.
> > But I think what you are saying is, it wouldn't make it enough
lighter
> > to be that much of an advantage from rechargeable AA Nimh batteries.
>
> Yep. Not referring to you (or anyone in particular for that
> matter) but I was imaging someone going to great lengths to shave
> off every last ounce of walk-around weight, yet still carrying a
> pint or quart of water. <g>

Hehe. Yes, well I wasn't sure if AA lithium rechargeables were a lot
lighter than Nimh rechargeables, because I haven't seen very many AA
lithiums in stores here in Toronto. I don't know if we have AA lithium
rechargeables here at all. I have seen packages of 4 "regular" AA
lithiums in Best Buy, but I didn't notice if they had lithium
rechargeables and if they do, they will be expensive. All rechargeable
batteries and chargers are a lot more expensive here than in the US. Of
course we don't have the market or population or variety you do. Cameras
are a lot more money here too, unless you wait a while or if they are on
sale. Even me, a great bargain hunter doesn't see many bargains, I keep
looking and hoping though. I miss my shopping expeditions I used to go
on to Buffalo and Niagara falls, NY.

> > Thanks.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> BTW, if you aren't familiar with the difference in weight between
> alkaline and lithium AAs, just pick up one of the 4-packs of each
> from the rack. Purchase not necessary. :) 

As I mentioned, I don't know if they have rechargeable lithium AA's
here. We don't seem to have very wide variety in batteries. At least
not where I look now and then. The only store I saw any regular AA
lithiums was Best Buy. I haven't looked for quite a while at cameras or
batteries. Next time I am in Best Buy, I will take a look.

Cathy
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 9:19:06 PM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:39:08 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> As I mentioned, I don't know if they have rechargeable lithium AA's
> here. We don't seem to have very wide variety in batteries. At least
> not where I look now and then. The only store I saw any regular AA
> lithiums was Best Buy. I haven't looked for quite a while at cameras or
> batteries. Next time I am in Best Buy, I will take a look.

I doubt that you'll find rechargeable lithium AAs anywhere, since
as far as I know they only are available using the chemical
formulation that produces approx. 3.0 volts per cell. There is one
type of lithium battery that is available which in a few specially
designed cameras can fit in the slot designed to hold two AA
batteries. (Sorry, but I don't recall the designation.) I think
that there may be a rechargeable version, but again, it's not a AA,
but a single 3.0v cell that only looks like it contains the
equivalent of 2 AA cells. That's not a big drawback since many new
cameras are extremely efficient, and in some (possibly the Sony W5
you're interested in) could take from 500 to 1000 pictures using a
pair of AA nonrechargeable lithiums. Fewer with flash, of course.
As I mentioned in another message, lithium rechargeables may cost
less in the long run, but only for people taking a fairly large
number of pictures per year. Consider this - Spend $50 on both
types. At the most expensive prices you're likely to find, $50 will
get you 20 lithium AAs (assuming $10 per 4-pack). That's 10 sets,
and for a person averaging 750 shots per set of batteries and taking
750 shots per year, that's a 10 year supply of batteries. With a
shelf life far in excess of 10 years, there won't be any wastage.
In fact, by buying the batteries only when needed, the cost is
reduced since the $50 isn't tied up for the entire 10 years.

But if you spend the $50 on a lithium rechargeable battery
(including charger), due to the difference in chemistry these
batteries will lose capacity whether they're used or not, and most
people would need to replace them after 2 or 3 years. Even if
individual battery replacements are relatively inexpensive (say $20
or so) the cost over 10 years could amount to a couple of hundred
dollars. Even more if an additional spare battery is used. Anyone
taking several thousand pictures per year (or many fewer if their
camera is a battery hog) would come out well ahead by using
rechargeables though.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 9:44:08 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:fj5ch111e3nrergv94b3i88dtjs7ab0dlj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:39:08 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned, I don't know if they have rechargeable lithium AA's
> > here. We don't seem to have very wide variety in batteries. At
least
> > not where I look now and then. The only store I saw any regular AA
> > lithiums was Best Buy. I haven't looked for quite a while at cameras
or
> > batteries. Next time I am in Best Buy, I will take a look.
>
> I doubt that you'll find rechargeable lithium AAs anywhere, since
> as far as I know they only are available using the chemical
> formulation that produces approx. 3.0 volts per cell. There is one
> type of lithium battery that is available which in a few specially
> designed cameras can fit in the slot designed to hold two AA
> batteries. (Sorry, but I don't recall the designation.) I think
> that there may be a rechargeable version, but again, it's not a AA,
> but a single 3.0v cell that only looks like it contains the
> equivalent of 2 AA cells. That's not a big drawback since many new
> cameras are extremely efficient, and in some (possibly the Sony W5
> you're interested in) could take from 500 to 1000 pictures using a
> pair of AA nonrechargeable lithiums.

Then it must have been non chargeable AA lithium batteries I saw before
at Best Buy.
If they have regular AA lithium batteries, why wouldn't they have
rechargeables like you can buy AA alkalines and AA Nimh rechargeables.
The Sony W5 takes two AA batteries so would have to be non rechargeable
lithium batteries or ordinary Alakalines or AA Nimh rechargeables.
I wouldn't be taking a lot of photos in a year, but could take about 50
now and then or more if on a vacation. Wouldn't AA Nimh rechargeables be
best for me. I don't want to be caught not having enough battery power.

Fewer with flash, of course.
> As I mentioned in another message, lithium rechargeables may cost
> less in the long run, but only for people taking a fairly large
> number of pictures per year. Consider this - Spend $50 on both
> types. At the most expensive prices you're likely to find, $50 will
> get you 20 lithium AAs (assuming $10 per 4-pack). That's 10 sets,
> and for a person averaging 750 shots per set of batteries and taking
> 750 shots per year, that's a 10 year supply of batteries. With a
> shelf life far in excess of 10 years, there won't be any wastage.
> In fact, by buying the batteries only when needed, the cost is
> reduced since the $50 isn't tied up for the entire 10 years.
>
> But if you spend the $50 on a lithium rechargeable battery
> (including charger), due to the difference in chemistry these
> batteries will lose capacity whether they're used or not, and most
> people would need to replace them after 2 or 3 years. Even if
> individual battery replacements are relatively inexpensive (say $20
> or so) the cost over 10 years could amount to a couple of hundred
> dollars. Even more if an additional spare battery is used. Anyone
> taking several thousand pictures per year (or many fewer if their
> camera is a battery hog) would come out well ahead by using
> rechargeables though.

So in your view, Nimh rechargeables are the best way to go whether you
take a lot of photos in a year, or only 50 (just an example).

Cathy
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 12:07:07 AM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:44:08 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> Then it must have been non chargeable AA lithium batteries I saw before
> at Best Buy.
> If they have regular AA lithium batteries, why wouldn't they have
> rechargeables like you can buy AA alkalines and AA Nimh rechargeables.

Because there are quite a number of lithium battery types. Each
is a mix of different elements and they have completely different
properties, but manufacturers simplify things grossly by calling
them all "lithium". A slight distinction is made when you hear
someone referring to Lithium-Ion. As I said (or implied) a
rechargeable lithium battery could be made in an AA form factor, but
due to its chemistry, the voltage would be 3.0. Put two of these in
the W5 and it would be seeing 6.0 volts, twice what it was designed
to handle. BTW, less that an hour ago I saw the rechargeable
lithium battery I mentioned before, in Radio Shack. It's a CRV3,
and they were selling it for $30, or $60 for a charging kit that
includes one battery. I'm guessing that it wouldn't fit in the W5,
but as it notes on the package, it can replace 2 AA batteries, but
only in specially designed battery cases.


> So in your view, Nimh rechargeables are the best way to go whether you
> take a lot of photos in a year, or only 50 (just an example).

If you have an old camera, yes, since it probably won't work very
well with alkaline batteries and wouldn't be cost effective with
lithiums. But in a new camera that can take up to 200 pictures
(including flash) or more than 500 without flash using a pair of
cheap alkalines AA cells, if you only take a couple of hundred
pictures per year, why would you want the hassle of fussing with
NiMH batteries that lose their charge rapidly as the weeks go by.
You could leave alkaline batteries in the camera, and with their
long shelf life (over 8 years) not have to worry about having a dead
camera because you didn't recharge the batteries within the last 3
or 4 months? And if you take many more pictures than that, so that
you have to change the batteries on average every two months, that's
still amounting to only about 3 or 4 dollars per year in battery
cost. Why pay $25 to $45 for NiMH unless you take many more
pictures per year, enough so that you're charging them so frequently
that they don't have time to self-discharge. That's when they
become cost effective and allow you to save a lot of money.

Fortunately you can figure out which way to go very easily,
without spending much money at all. Just start using alkaline AAs
from the start (and I assume that the W5 would include a pair in the
box). If they last a couple of months or more, stick with
alkalines. If they don't, and you think you'll continue shooting
pictures at about the same rate, then buy a NiMH charger and at
least one (preferably two) set of batteries.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:25:21 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:f3gch1peuld4k6autcom5fn3d0gh64akf4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:44:08 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > Then it must have been non chargeable AA lithium batteries I saw
before
> > at Best Buy.
> > If they have regular AA lithium batteries, why wouldn't they have
> > rechargeables like you can buy AA alkalines and AA Nimh
rechargeables.
>
> Because there are quite a number of lithium battery types. Each
> is a mix of different elements and they have completely different
> properties, but manufacturers simplify things grossly by calling
> them all "lithium". A slight distinction is made when you hear
> someone referring to Lithium-Ion. As I said (or implied) a
> rechargeable lithium battery could be made in an AA form factor, but
> due to its chemistry, the voltage would be 3.0. Put two of these in
> the W5 and it would be seeing 6.0 volts, twice what it was designed
> to handle.

Why can't they just make rechargeable AA lithiums with less volts so
they could be used in digital cameras? Or are Nimh AA rechargeables
better batteries?

> BTW, less that an hour ago I saw the rechargeable
>lithium battery I mentioned before, in Radio Shack. It's a CRV3,
>and they were selling it for $30, or $60 for a charging kit that
>includes one battery. I'm guessing that it wouldn't fit in the W5,
>but as it notes on the package, it can replace 2 AA batteries, but
> only in specially designed battery cases.

I saw a CRV3 battery in a camera store a while back, but didn't know
what camera it was for, or what kind of battery it was. I don't think it
was a charging kit and battery, just the battery I think.
So many different kinds of batteries for digital cameras. Its no wonder
people get confused about the issue.

> > So in your view, Nimh rechargeables are the best way to go whether
you
> > take a lot of photos in a year, or only 50 (just an example).

> Fortunately you can figure out which way to go very easily,
> without spending much money at all. Just start using alkaline AAs
> from the start (and I assume that the W5 would include a pair in the
> box).

I think the W5 has rechargeables and a battery charger as I recall. I
haven't seen anything from the guy who originally started this thread
about the goods and bads of the W5 which I asked him before.

If they last a couple of months or more, stick with
> alkalines. If they don't, and you think you'll continue shooting
> pictures at about the same rate, then buy a NiMH charger and at
> least one (preferably two) set of batteries.

You're probably right :) 
Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:50:14 AM

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

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:25:21 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> Why can't they just make rechargeable AA lithiums with less volts so
> they could be used in digital cameras?

Because the batch of chemicals whipped up by the battery chefs in
order to get the properties needed for "rechargeability" produces a
3.0 volt cell. It's possible that some company has produced 1.5
volt rechargeable lithium cells, but if so, it probably has
drawbacks severe enough to make it unmarketable. Like it or not,
it's what we're stuck with in this universe at the present time.
Maybe someday a different mix of chemicals will produce a 1.5 volt
rechargeable lithium cells, but for now, lower voltages (1.2 volts)
are available from NiCad and NiMH cells. Rechargeable lead cells
are about 2.0 volts. Don't blame it on me, I didn't create this
universe. I just live here. :) 


> Or are Nimh AA rechargeables better batteries?

Are you sure you want an answer to this (very non-specific)
question? The answer won't be very short unless you qualify the
question a little better. It's sort of like asking someone if SUVs
make better vehicles. The answer depends entirely on the intended
use, even on where and how they'd be used.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:18:23 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:i11dh1hqffagt64etntal7mgl7msrv6231@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:25:21 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > Why can't they just make rechargeable AA lithiums with less volts so
> > they could be used in digital cameras?
>
> Because the batch of chemicals whipped up by the battery chefs in
> order to get the properties needed for "rechargeability" produces a
> 3.0 volt cell. It's possible that some company has produced 1.5
> volt rechargeable lithium cells, but if so, it probably has
> drawbacks severe enough to make it unmarketable. Like it or not,
> it's what we're stuck with in this universe at the present time.
> Maybe someday a different mix of chemicals will produce a 1.5 volt
> rechargeable lithium cells, but for now, lower voltages (1.2 volts)
> are available from NiCad and NiMH cells. Rechargeable lead cells
> are about 2.0 volts. Don't blame it on me, I didn't create this
> universe. I just live here. :) 

OK.

> > Or are Nimh AA rechargeables better batteries?
>
> Are you sure you want an answer to this (very non-specific)
> question? The answer won't be very short unless you qualify the
> question a little better. It's sort of like asking someone if SUVs
> make better vehicles. The answer depends entirely on the intended
> use, even on where and how they'd be used.

I got a bit lost there. It was getting late and thats my excuse and I am
sticking to it. I think I meant something along the lines of, if I
wanted to get rechargeable AA batteries for a digital camera, it would
seem from what most people say, that NimH are the best as far as
rechargeable AA batteries are concerned. Thanks again.

Cathy
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:42:05 AM

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

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 02:18:23 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> I got a bit lost there. It was getting late and thats my excuse and I am
> sticking to it. I think I meant something along the lines of, if I
> wanted to get rechargeable AA batteries for a digital camera, it would
> seem from what most people say, that NimH are the best as far as
> rechargeable AA batteries are concerned. Thanks again.

Right. If you've decided that you'd prefer or need to use
rechargeable batteries, then you would have two clear choices, NiCad
and NiMH. Most of the time NiMH would be the better choice, as
their capacity is more than twice as great as NiCads. A third type,
(the odd lithium CRV3, equivalent to two AA cells) probably wouldn't
fit. A fourth type, rechargeable alkaline AA batteries are totally
impractical for use in cameras. Avoid them at all costs.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 4:29:14 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:p e7dh19iptid7jgc9ir5m36v8a0opihm99@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 02:18:23 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I got a bit lost there. It was getting late and thats my excuse and
I am
> > sticking to it. I think I meant something along the lines of, if I
> > wanted to get rechargeable AA batteries for a digital camera, it
would
> > seem from what most people say, that NimH are the best as far as
> > rechargeable AA batteries are concerned. Thanks again.
>
> Right. If you've decided that you'd prefer or need to use
> rechargeable batteries, then you would have two clear choices, NiCad
> and NiMH. Most of the time NiMH would be the better choice, as
> their capacity is more than twice as great as NiCads. A third type,
> (the odd lithium CRV3, equivalent to two AA cells) probably wouldn't
> fit. A fourth type, rechargeable alkaline AA batteries are totally
> impractical for use in cameras. Avoid them at all costs.

Thanks B :) 

Cathy
!