Modern Nikon D-SLR camera that takes standard AA batteries
Amanda Williams
EN-EL3battery going dead after only a day or two on the road (I use the
flash on every shot). Even carrying an extra EN-EL3a doesn't solve the
problem as it goes dead just two days later, leaving me in the lurch not
even a week into my trip.
It wouldn't be so bad to be forced to carry the bulky MH-18a Nikon battery
charger everywhere I go when on vacation except that I have to also carry
all the other different chargers my cell phones and those of my kids, my
video camera, my computer, my PDA, my skype phone charger, my usb hub, etc.
It's just too many freakin' chargers. I'm trying to standardize on just AA
and USB for all my hand-held electronics accessorites.
So, I'm ditching the Nikon D50 for a digital SLR that takes AA batteries. I
found a few from Fuji and Pentax but none from Nikon. Did I miss something?
So, I ask:
Is there a modern D-SLR camera from Nikon (one that takes AA batteries)?
Or, at least a modern AA battery pack for the Nikon D50 D-SLR?
TIA,
Amanda W.
bmoag
determining camera choice, particularly if one is not taking the camera to
remote, uncivilized locations where recharging may not be available.
You may be happier with an all in one like theCanon Powershot S3 IS Digital
Camera: can use any kind of AA battery and has image stabilization.
Rudy Benner
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:1ex2yiwt8kf2x.v...@40tude.net...
Have you considered getting a strobe?
Al Bundy
The energy required to power the screen on a digital or operate the
flash regularly will drain a set of AA cells in short order. You won't
achieve any service life at all.
It wouldn't work for everybody, but I run an external battery pack that
allows me to take 100 pictures on a charge.
george
2 EN-EL3e.
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:1ex2yiwt8kf2x.v...@40tude.net...
Clive
I'm Looking at the Pentax K100D - because it takes 4xAA batteries or 2 CR3
units
Pantax have shown off a 10MP DSLR
http://www.digital-shot.com/50226711/pentaxs_10mp_dslr.php
Suspect it will take AA batteries as well. Link above says due for launch
Autumn 2006
Clive
Mark˛
The Canon 20D, 30D and 5D can all be operated using AAs if you have the
vertical grip. When you buy the grip (designed to use either one or two 511
batteries), it includes a battery cartridge that holds 6 AAs. The cartridge
fits nicely into the grip...
I've heard that the 20D does operate for very long on them, but I've been
pleasantly surprised to discover that my 12.8MP 5D operates extremely well
on them! I suspect that the new 30D does as well.
I don't usually use AA, but when traveling, it is very reassuring to have
the ability of AA use since they are easy to find worldwide (should anything
happen to my charger, or if I'm unable to charge for some reason).
-Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
[BnH]
Or you can opt MB-D70 and use CR-2 batteries ?
btw .. in regards to your usage pattern, I found it quite strange.
Once I use a friend D50 .. the battery kept going on and on and on. They
were here for a competition and the battery last them 10 days on single
charge [and made around 1000 images] Flash usage was around 10% of the time
[as I use fast glass :)]
IF you use flash on 100% of your shots, BUY yourself an external flash . .ie
SB-600.
The cost to repair those flash are cheaper than you have to change the D50
built in flash.
=bob=
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:1ex2yiwt8kf2x.v...@40tude.net...
[BnH]
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:bDQyg.16610$6w.12550@fed1read11...
> The Canon 20D, 30D and 5D can all be operated using AAs if you have the
> vertical grip. When you buy the grip (designed to use either one or two
> 511 batteries), it includes a battery cartridge that holds 6 AAs. The
> cartridge fits nicely into the grip...
Watch out on some earlier BG-E2. It somehow does not like using rechargable
NiMH at all.
2 -5 shots .. then kaput :D
Mark˛
Mine work very well.
Scott Peterson
>It's just too many freakin' chargers. I'm trying to standardize on just AA
>and USB for all my hand-held electronics accessorites.
I think that this idea is unrealistic today. The specialized
batteries are not going away.
>
>So, I'm ditching the Nikon D50 for a digital SLR that takes AA batteries. I
>found a few from Fuji and Pentax but none from Nikon. Did I miss something?
Why not just carry a small external flash with its own batteries.
Scott Peterson
--
Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced
with the choice between changing one's
mind and proving that there is no need
to do so, almost everybody gets busy
on the proof.
(387/728)
Wayne
>
>
>I currently own the Nikon D50 but I'm sick and tired of the stock
>EN-EL3battery going dead after only a day or two on the road (I use the
>flash on every shot). Even carrying an extra EN-EL3a doesn't solve the
>problem as it goes dead just two days later, leaving me in the lurch not
>even a week into my trip.
What you need is a SB-800 flash unit, for better flash pictures too. The
Camera batteries will last forever then, and the four Ni-Mh AA in the SB-800
are good for maybe 150 shots.
ASAAR
number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> Watch out on some earlier BG-E2. It somehow does not like using
>> rechargable NiMH at all.
>> 2 -5 shots .. then kaput :D
>
> Mine work very well.
You seem to not have noticed that BnH didn't say that ALL battery
grips don't work well with AA batteries, just that some "earlier"
ones don't. Canon is aware of which ones may be defective and will
repair them at no extra cost, other than possibly shipping. I'm
proud of you, Mark², that you'd deign to use AA batteries in your
Canon, when it's well known throughout the SMSuniverse that only
Li-Ion batteries are worthy, whether used in the camera or in the
grip.
Matti Vuori
news:44cbd63a$0$23664$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> or maybe S4 Pro ?
Great idea. There isn't one, nor is it 100 % sure that there ever will be
one.
--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
Rina
on my battery lasts so long that I forget that I should charge it... I'm
thrilled with the longevity of the battery for my D50. I haven't even felt
the need to buy a spare (yet).
You have too many gadgets!
All kidding aside, it's amazing how many chargers we have to carry for all
our toys.
Rina
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:1ex2yiwt8kf2x.v...@40tude.net...
Fred Lebow
fast
And I would still advise taking a AA charge along in stead of buying AA
batteries as you go along or carrying extra ones.
All of your other stuff has proprietary batteries.
Leave some of the stuff home
or put up w the chargers.
I am used to carrying 3-4 ea trip.
Unless I go backwoods and then I bring everything small - an extra battery
for my Olympus 710 camera only
-- which is real small anyway
Fred
Fred Lebow
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:1ex2yiwt8kf2x.v...@40tude.net...
CSM1
The New Nikon D200 has the option of using six AA batteries.
Power Source: One Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL3e, MB-D200 battery pack
(optional) with one or two rechargeable Nikon EN-EL3e Li-ion batteries or
six AA alkaline (LR6), NiMH (HR6), lithium (FR6) batteries, or 2R6
nickel-manganese AA batteries, AC Adapter EH-6 (optional)
--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--
J. Clarke
It's a bit difficult to imagine any AA battery pack for the D50 _not_ being
"modern", considering neither the D50 nor AA batteries existed in ancient
times.
If you had even tried googling "d50 AA" your second hit would have provided
you a link that listed not one but two different brands of such a device.
>
> TIA,
> Amanda W.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Amanda Williams
> If you had even tried googling "d50 AA" your second hit would have provided
> you a link that listed not one but two different brands of such a device.
Oh my. I had previously searched the Nikon web site and did not find any AA
adapters for the Nikon D50 D-SLR but I do now see these $50 non-Nikon D50
AA adapters now, thanks to you.
It seems these Nikon D50 AA adapters pack astoundingly more cost:power
using the $12 dollar 6 NiMH 1.35v 2400mAh AA batteries than they do when
holding the proprietary $150 dollar 2 EN-EL3 7.4v 1400mAh lithium ion or 2
EN-EL3a 7.4v 1500mAh lithium ion batteries.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CQBKEM/103-3067694-7608658?v=glance&n=502394
Is my math correct? Those of you who use these Nikon D50 AA adapters, do
you get roughly the same amount of power (2400mAh) out of twelve dollars of
NiMH AA batteries as you do with one hundred and fifty dollars of
proprietary lithium ion EN-EL3a (1500 mAh x2 = 3000 mAh)?
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> All kidding aside, it's amazing how many chargers we have to carry for all
> our toys.
Does anyone know if we can recharge the Nikon D50 proprietary atteries
using the mini USB connector in the camera?
All my new hand-held gadgets are mini-USB (i.e., Motorola cellphone,
earpiece, PDA, SD/CF card reader, etc.).
If Nikon engineers haven't thought of this yet, does any other digital SLR
recharge through the mini-USB connector in the camera? If not, why not? We
have to bring the Windows PC along anyway to dump the 2 GB Scan Disc Ultra
II SD card onto the laptop. We may as well charge all our apparatus off the
one PC charger via the USB ports.
If this hasn't been thought of yet by either the D-SLR consumer or by the
D-SLR manufacturers, how would we get them to consider this vast
improvement (this quantum leap is on the order of adding luggage wheels to
all my suitcases in the past twenty years).
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> What you need is a SB-800 flash unit, for better flash pictures too. The
> Camera batteries will last forever then, and the four Ni-Mh AA in the SB-800
> are good for maybe 150 shots.
Will this SB-800 reduce the red eye I seem to constantly get when taking
photographs in lower light with the Nikon D50 D-SLR camera?
TIA,
Amanda W.
Bob Ward
Your math mightbe correct, but your shopping skills need work. A
quick search with Froogle finds them at $21.99 each from
http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product_Id=4071259&JRSource=googlebase.datafeed.P2K+ACD253
(or http://tinyurl.com/zhcl9)
or for $7.99 from
http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid=10233837&lot_id=2286577&mode=googleff
http://tinyurl.com/luhnz
or for $10.99 from
http://www.alpinetop.com/p/10002133/Li-Ion-Digital-Camera-Rechargeable-Battery-Replacement/EN-EL3/1300mAh-EN-EL3-EN-EL3a-EN-EL3e-Li-Ion-Digital-Camera-Replacement-Battery-for-Nikon.html
http://tinyurl.com/kyhjk
Joan
a diffuser to soften the light.
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:18qwq76q8j57s.3...@40tude.net...
Randy Berbaum
: Will this SB-800 reduce the red eye I seem to constantly get when taking
: photographs in lower light with the Nikon D50 D-SLR camera?
The solution to red eye in ALL brands of camera is to move the flash away
from the lens. Red eye occurs when the light from the flash rebounds from
the back of the eye, to the camera lens. Most built in flashes are way too
close to the lens. So the further you can move the flash the better. A
flash on a hot shoe will be better than the built in, and a flash on an
extension cable held at arms length from the camera (either by a bracket
or with one hand) will be better. One other trick is to use a flash on a
hot shoe with a tilt head that will allow you to aim the flash at a
convenient nearby, light colored surface. By bouncing the flash the angle
of the light from the flash to the lens will be greatly increased. Of
course if the surface you are bouncing off of is too far away the light
will be reduced. And if the surface is colored it can impart a color cast
to the light from the flash which can have "interresting" effects on your
subject. But at least you won't have red eye. ;)
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Paul
sells a battery grip, 2 Lion batteries and an AA holder for the grip
(AA's not supplied). Available for the D50 and some other SLR cameras.
Paul
Rod Speed
Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote
> Rina wrote
>> All kidding aside, it's amazing how many
>> chargers we have to carry for all our toys.
> Does anyone know if we can recharge the Nikon D50 proprietary
> batteries using the mini USB connector in the camera?
Unlikely.
> All my new hand-held gadgets are mini-USB (i.e., Motorola
> cellphone, earpiece, PDA, SD/CF card reader, etc.).
> If Nikon engineers haven't thought of this yet, does any other digital SLR
> recharge through the mini-USB connector in the camera? If not, why not?
Basically because the 500ma limit with USB is too low to be viable with a camera.
> We have to bring the Windows PC along anyway to dump the 2 GB
> Scan Disc Ultra II SD card onto the laptop. We may as well charge
> all our apparatus off the one PC charger via the USB ports.
> If this hasn't been thought of yet by either the D-SLR consumer or
> by the D-SLR manufacturers, how would we get them to consider
> this vast improvement (this quantum leap is on the order of adding
> luggage wheels to all my suitcases in the past twenty years).
Corse they have considered it.
ASAAR
> Will this SB-800 reduce the red eye I seem to constantly get when taking
> photographs in lower light with the Nikon D50 D-SLR camera?
Redeye is produced when light from the flash is reflected by the
eye back into the lens. The effect is greatest when this angle
(flash to eye to lens) is smallest. A simpler way of putting it is
that if you increase the distance from the flash tube to the lens,
you'll generally produce less redeye. When using the SB-800, its
flash tube/reflector is usually *much* farther from the lens than
when using a built-in popup flash, so you'll get much less redeye in
your pictures. Even less if it's raised higher by being attached to
a bracket or by bouncing the flash off a wall or ceiling.
[from other messages:]
> Does anyone know if we can recharge the Nikon D50 proprietary atteries
> using the mini USB connector in the camera?
> . . .
> If Nikon engineers haven't thought of this yet, does any other digital SLR
> recharge through the mini-USB connector in the camera? If not, why not? We
> have to bring the Windows PC along anyway to dump the 2 GB Scan Disc Ultra
> II SD card onto the laptop. We may as well charge all our apparatus off the
> one PC charger via the USB ports.
Probably not. I don't have a D50 so I can't say for sure, but the
problem is that the USB standard defines the voltage and current
that the bus is able to supply, and it's generally too little to
effectively charge large batteries. I recall reading messages
several years ago concerning whether the USB could be used to
recharge the batteries in some of the first Palm PDAs that used
rechargeable batteries instead of the usual pair of AAA alkalines.
The answer was that only a few models could do that, and it didn't
do it very well. If the separate charger was used, the batteries
would recharge rapidly, but if the USB power was used, they'd charge
at a very slow trickle charge rate. I'm not even sure that if left
charging overnight that the batteries would be fully charged in the
morning. The much larger batteries used by the D50 would probably
take too long to fully charge for a USB charging solution to be
practical.
> It seems these Nikon D50 AA adapters pack astoundingly more cost:power
> using the $12 dollar 6 NiMH 1.35v 2400mAh AA batteries than they do when
> holding the proprietary $150 dollar 2 EN-EL3 7.4v 1400mAh lithium ion or 2
> EN-EL3a 7.4v 1500mAh lithium ion batteries.
> . . .
> Is my math correct? Those of you who use these Nikon D50 AA adapters, do
> you get roughly the same amount of power (2400mAh) out of twelve dollars of
> NiMH AA batteries as you do with one hundred and fifty dollars of
> proprietary lithium ion EN-EL3a (1500 mAh x2 = 3000 mAh)?
Soon after the NiMH cells have been charged and begun supplying
power, their voltage will be about 1.2 volts, not 1.35. So 6 cells
would provide the nearly the same voltage initially (7.2v, slightly
less), and at 2400 mAh should provide substantially more energy than
a single EN-EL3a, but somewhat less than two of them. You should be
able to get a pair of non-Nikon brand Li-Ion batteries for
considerably less than $150, but you'll still pay quite a bit more
than $12 for them. The fact that NiMH batteries have a much higher
self discharge rate than Li-Ion batteries would make the latter more
convenient to use if the batteries were used so lightly that they
wouldn't need to be recharged more frequently than every month or
so. That you use them so heavily (needing to recharge the EN-EL3
every day or two) would make the self-discharge difference between
the two battery types a non-issue. But if you go the AA route, be
conservative. If the 6 AA NiMH cells would normally be able to
power the D50 for 10 hours, don't wait that long. Replace them with
a second charged set after 7 or 8 hours. Unless the battery
holder/grip has been carefully designed to shut down the camera when
the first AA cell has no remaining charge, you could damage that
cell if you continue to use the camera. Of course if that does
happen, you'd only be out $2 for the single damaged cell. If the
same thing happened with a proprietary battery pack, whether NiMH or
Li-Ion, it's very unlikely that you'd be able to fix it, and would
have a much higher battery pack replacement cost than $2.
Amanda Williams
> Your math mightbe correct, but your shopping skills need work. A
> quick search with Froogle finds them at $21.99 or for $7.99 from
> or for $10.99
Can this be true?
Nikon EN-EL3a 1500 mAh lithium-ion batteries for less than 22 dollars?
I find this hard to believe since I paid over $75 for my last EN-EL3a
replacement battery pack.
Would anyone else buy the $8, $11, or $22 dollar batteries referenced?
(Are they legit?)
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> The 6 Ni-MH AA cells would provide the nearly the same voltage
> (7.2v) and at 2400 mAh should provide substantially more energy than
> a single Nikon 1500 mAh EN-EL3a, but somewhat less than two of them.
I thought so. It seemed too amazing that, for $12, I could get 2400 mAh of
Ni-MH battery power while the Nikon EN-EL3a only gave me 1500 mAh of Li-ion
battery power. From a purely power standpoint, the generic nickel metal
hydride batteries beat the pants off the proprietary lithium ion
formulations it seems.
> You should be able to get a pair of non-Nikon brand Li-Ion batteries
> considerably less than $150, but you'll still pay quite a bit more
> than $12 for them.
Hmmm. The quoted $8, $11, and $22 dollars for the Nikon EN-EL3a seems just
too good to be true. Can we truly buy the Nikon EN-EL3a lithium ion battery
for about the same price as six AA Ni-MH batteries? If that is true, then
the math suddenly switches wholly in the favor of the lithium ion
batteries.
But, I suspect those suggested $8/$11/$22 dollar amounts for the Nikon
EN-EL3a are just too good to be true. Can someone concur that they are
indeed true? If so, I'll buy a batch of them just like I do with my AA
batteries!
(Where do YOU buy your Nikon EN-EL3a batteries and for how much?)
TIA,
Amanda W.
ASAAR
> Hmmm. The quoted $8, $11, and $22 dollars for the Nikon EN-EL3a seems just
> too good to be true. Can we truly buy the Nikon EN-EL3a lithium ion battery
> for about the same price as six AA Ni-MH batteries? If that is true, then
> the math suddenly switches wholly in the favor of the lithium ion
> batteries.
>
> But, I suspect those suggested $8/$11/$22 dollar amounts for the Nikon
> EN-EL3a are just too good to be true. Can someone concur that they are
> indeed true? If so, I'll buy a batch of them just like I do with my AA
> batteries!
It's difficult to say whether or not you'd get decent batteries
for those prices. Some people apparently do, others don't. Some
have complained that their cheap battery worked for a couple of
charges and they died. There should be protective circuitry within
Li-Ion battery packs to protect against overheating or fires, and
some cheap batteries are said to lack the circuitry.
> (Where do YOU buy your Nikon EN-EL3a batteries and for how much?)
I don't. My only Nikon cameras weren't digital and used AA
batteries. I've bought replacements for the proprietary batteries
that were used in old Canon Powershots from B&H, J&R and Adorama,
where the prices were about $20 from the latter two and more from
B&H. But even B&H's prices were well below the original Canon
battery prices (about $50). There's another reason besides the
obvious one for getting a AA battery grip for the D50. Insurance.
Some people could use the camera for several years and then lose
interest in photography and pack it up for 10 or 20 years. If they
then take it out of storage to either use once more or to give the
camera to someone else, there's no guarantee that the proprietary
batteries will still be available. But AA batteries will be. I'm
sure that in the future there will be better, much more capable
cameras. But the D50 should still be able to produce photos as well
as it does today, just as my much older Nikon F's will, assuming
that film and its processing doesn't become practical only for
wealthy, obsessed film fans. This may not be of interest for many
people, but I tend to use all kinds of electronic devices and
cameras far longer than most users, replacing them either when they
can no longer perform satisfactorily or when they finally die.
SMS
> I currently own the Nikon D50 but I'm sick and tired of the stock
> EN-EL3battery going dead after only a day or two on the road (I use the
> flash on every shot). Even carrying an extra EN-EL3a doesn't solve the
> problem as it goes dead just two days later, leaving me in the lurch not
> even a week into my trip.
"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CQBKEM/102-7331065-6506567?v=glance&n=502394"
Of course if you're "on the road" their are a variety of ways to charge
your batteries, all of which will be more effective than carrying large
quantities of disposable AA batteries.
But of course you knew that.
I don't think anyone realized you were trolling until you over-did it
with the claim that the Li-Ion packs cost $150 for two. Even the genuine
Nikon batteries cost only $40-50 each,
and good after-market ones are about $17.50 each
("http://sterlingtek.com/twonienba.html").
J. Clarke
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:24:58 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
>
>> The 6 Ni-MH AA cells would provide the nearly the same voltage
>> (7.2v) and at 2400 mAh should provide substantially more energy than
>> a single Nikon 1500 mAh EN-EL3a, but somewhat less than two of them.
>
> I thought so. It seemed too amazing that, for $12, I could get 2400 mAh of
> Ni-MH battery power while the Nikon EN-EL3a only gave me 1500 mAh of
> Li-ion battery power. From a purely power standpoint, the generic nickel
> metal hydride batteries beat the pants off the proprietary lithium ion
> formulations it seems.
>
>> You should be able to get a pair of non-Nikon brand Li-Ion batteries
>> considerably less than $150, but you'll still pay quite a bit more
>> than $12 for them.
>
> Hmmm. The quoted $8, $11, and $22 dollars for the Nikon EN-EL3a seems just
> too good to be true. Can we truly buy the Nikon EN-EL3a lithium ion
> battery for about the same price as six AA Ni-MH batteries? If that is
> true, then the math suddenly switches wholly in the favor of the lithium
> ion batteries.
They aren't Nikon brand anymore than the NiMH batteries are Nikon brand.
There's nothing magic about Nikon that gives them special expertise in the
manufacture of batteries.
> But, I suspect those suggested $8/$11/$22 dollar amounts for the Nikon
> EN-EL3a are just too good to be true. Can someone concur that they are
> indeed true? If so, I'll buy a batch of them just like I do with my AA
> batteries!
>
> (Where do YOU buy your Nikon EN-EL3a batteries and for how much?)
>
> TIA,
> Amanda W.
--
Neil Ellwood
The charger for the Canon 350D is so small that it is easy to carry so why
bother?
--
Neil
Delete l to reply
Neil Ellwood
Do a little work - try 'google'
Neil Ellwood
> Yes. You can point the flash away and use bounced light. You can use
> a diffuser to soften the light.
Or even use available light.
Don K
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:11:05 -0400, Rina wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if we can recharge the Nikon D50 proprietary atteries
> using the mini USB connector in the camera?
>
Since the Nikon battery seems to be 7.4 volts and the USB voltage
seems to be 5 volts, I'd say say the short answer is "no".
> If this hasn't been thought of yet by either the D-SLR consumer or by the
> D-SLR manufacturers, how would we get them to consider this vast
> improvement (this quantum leap is on the order of adding luggage wheels to
> all my suitcases in the past twenty years).
Manufacturers strive to make their cameras small and lightweight.
If you want the battery charger to be part of your camera, then glue
it to the bottom of the camera.
Don
Bill Funk
Not Nikon here, but Canon...
Yes, Nikon (and Canon) charge a *lot* for that Nikon (Canon) lettering
on their batteries. And they don't even make them; they buy them with
the lettering applied.
You can buy the same and similar batteries (without the lettering) for
a lot less. Not all are as good, but (in my observations and
experience) most are. The trick is to buy from reputable places.
The $8 and $10 items are probably dodgy, but the $22 is probably about
right (again, be careful where you buy).
There aqre many reputable battery dealers who have good reputations,
who will sell for 1/2 the Nikon cost.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Shawn Hirn
Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:
> I currently own the Nikon D50 but I'm sick and tired of the stock
> EN-EL3battery going dead after only a day or two on the road (I use the
> flash on every shot). Even carrying an extra EN-EL3a doesn't solve the
> problem as it goes dead just two days later, leaving me in the lurch not
> even a week into my trip.
This is a question you should try posting on the rec.photo.digital
newsgroup. I am a Canon dSLR user, so I am not well informed on the
accessories that go with a Nikon D50, but I suspect your best option is
to simply look for an external battery pack or carry more spare
batteries.
Using AAA batteries is a horrible way to meet your need because you will
likely end up carrying tons of them and having to change them more often.
> It wouldn't be so bad to be forced to carry the bulky MH-18a Nikon battery
> charger everywhere I go when on vacation except that I have to also carry
> all the other different chargers my cell phones and those of my kids, my
> video camera, my computer, my PDA, my skype phone charger, my usb hub, etc.
>
> It's just too many freakin' chargers. I'm trying to standardize on just AA
> and USB for all my hand-held electronics accessorites.
>
> So, I'm ditching the Nikon D50 for a digital SLR that takes AA batteries. I
> found a few from Fuji and Pentax but none from Nikon. Did I miss something?
>
> So, I ask:
> Is there a modern D-SLR camera from Nikon (one that takes AA batteries)?
> Or, at least a modern AA battery pack for the Nikon D50 D-SLR?
Check http://www.nikon.com or a online store such as
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/to see what's available.
Amanda Williams
> Do a little work - try 'google'
How does that tell us if the supplier is known to be reputable or not?
TIA,
Amanda W.
John Emmons
flash. The flash is too close to the axis of the lens. Using a larger flash
will help as would bouncing the flash off the ceiling or even off a wall if
you get a flash with an adjustable head.
In your earlier post you mentioned that you use the flash in every shot,
why? Is every photograph you take in extremely low light? You can adjust the
ISO on the camera to give you better exposures in low light rather than use
the flash on every shot.
As for the cost of the battery, there are several aftermarket branded
batteries that will work as well as the Nikon branded ones. They are
considerably cheaper. Look for Lenmar products at your local camera shop,
they make a replacement battery for your camera, they probably make a
smaller charger for it as well.
John E.
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:18qwq76q8j57s.3...@40tude.net...
Amanda Williams
> The charger for the Canon 350D is so small that it is easy to carry so why
> bother?
I think you missed the point which was stated in the first post.
We already said:
- The proprietary charger for my Motorola earpiece is small.
- The proprietary charger for my IBM ThinkPad is small.
- The proprietary charger for my Motorola cell phone is small.
- The proprietary charger for the kids' Nokia cell phones is small.
- The proprietary charger for the kids' Apple iPod is small.
- The proprietary charger for our Linksys Skype telephone is small.
- The proprietary charger for our Panasonic AA battery charger is small.
- The proprietary charger for my husband's Exilim EX-Z750 pocketcam is
small.
- The proprietary charger for our JVC GR-DVL820U videocam is small.
- The proprietary charger for our no-name USB hub is small.
etc.
Just like nobody thought of luggage wheels twenty years ago, I just want to
standardize on ONE or TWO universal chargers (USB & AA seem decent).
Just like BMW was forced to add basic usable cupholders to their latest
(2nd generation) automobiles for an audience who demanded it, the
manufacturers would be forced to have a non-proprietary input jack if we
consumers simply demanded it!
I question why consumers haven't demanded a universal input jack for
chargers (all of which do essentially the same thing). It can't be cost
because the cost, to both the consumer, & to the manufacturer would be
VASTLY less to supply and use one reusable charger rather than to employ
fifteen throw away chargers.
Even profits to manufacturers would be greater if they fit this scheme (if
consumers were to demand this efficiency like they do in telephone and
stereo input jacks).
Just like we demand that our kitchens have a standard refrigerator and
microwave cutout, our safety would be greater with one well-built
well-known charger with well-thought-out safety circuitry.
The social issue I wonder about is:
Why have we consumers NOT demanded this obviously logical universal
charger feature?
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
>> Does anyone know if we can recharge the Nikon D50 proprietary atteries
>> using the mini USB connector in the camera?
>>
> Since the Nikon battery seems to be 7.4 volts and the USB voltage
> seems to be 5 volts, I'd say say the short answer is "no".
That's a good point. They could emply step-up circuitry (my car has a
cell-phone-sized "inverter" which steps up the 12 volt DC cigarette lighter
input to 120 volts AC). But they probably do not.
>> If this hasn't been thought of yet by either the D-SLR consumer or by the
>> D-SLR manufacturers, how would we get them to consider this vast
>> improvement (this quantum leap is on the order of adding luggage wheels to
>> all my suitcases in the past twenty years).
>
> Manufacturers strive to make their cameras small and lightweight.
> If you want the battery charger to be part of your camera, then glue
> it to the bottom of the camera.
I don't understand this comment. My Motorola cellphone is small and
lightweight but it takes an input to charge the batteries. My Motorola
earpiece is really small and really lightweight and it takes a USB input to
charge. Even my husband's Casio Exilim EX-Z750 pocket cameracamera is
really really small and really lightweight, and IT takes an input jack.
How do they make an earpiece and a camera that easily fits in a shirt
pocket small and lightweight yet still charge but they couldn't do it to a
huge (in comparison) and heavy (in comparison) Nikon D50 D-SLR?
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> you over-did it with the claim that the Li-Ion packs cost $150 for two.
> Even the genuine Nikon batteries cost only $40-50 each,
When I bought the extra battery during the EN-EL3 recall last year, I paid
over $70 dollars for the Nikon branded EN-EL3a battery pack.
Even today, here's the same battery sold for $70 dollars.
http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/henrys/itemframes.jsp?departmentId=10404&itemID=147461¤cy=USD&affiliate=froogle
Just like you can buy a car for $300 dollars but most of us pay around
$30,000 dollars, you have to be suspicious of really low pricing.
I don't see why you insulted me with a listing of $70 since that's
obviously what I paid a year ago (and you can still pay that today) and you
quoted a price which is close to what I paid, and it's a year later (and
probably an Internet price and not an in-store price, including 8% taxes).
Even if I bought the battery for the $40 to $50 (making the 2-pack $100 vs
the AA six-pack of $12) ... does that materially change the question?
Please explain your logic,
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> Using AAA batteries is a horrible way to meet your need because you will
> likely end up carrying tons of them and having to change them more often.
Are you SURE that is a correct statement (or is it an old-wives tale)?
Assuming you meant AA (which is what we were comparing), it seems the
standard NiMH batteries give "about as much" power as the proprietary
Li-Ion proprietary batteries (see all my math below).
We already did the math earlier which determined six $2 dollars each
Panasonic 2400 mAh AA batteries gave us 7.2 volts and 2400 mAh of power ...
while two $40-$50 dollars each Nikon En-EL3 batteries gave us about the
same power at 7.4 volts and 1400 mhA each (1400 x 2 = 2800 mAh).
This match doesn't seem to me to back up your claim (urban legend?) that
we'll be replacing the individual NiMH AA batteries any sooner than the
proprietary Lithium-ion battery packs.
Even upgrading to two even more expensive Nikon EN-EL3a battery packs only
gives us 1500 mAh x 2 = 3000 mAh of power. This is only 600 mAh more power
than six puny easy-to-find Panasonic NiMH single cells (which, if one goes
bad, we can easily replace ... and that can't be said for the proprietary
sealed battery packs).
So, please tell me if my math is wrong (ASAAR already improved upon it) ...
as I claim the opposite of what you claimed.
I think we'd be replacing batteries "about the same" whether we use the six
single-cell Panasonic AA NiMH batteries or the two Nikon EN-EL3a battery
packs (assuming we shoot all day). (I'm not talking about shelf life.)
Am I right or wrong (the facts are either right or wrong).
Is it an urban legend that AA batteries don't give "about the same" power
as the most powerful of the Nikon proprietary battery pack (EN-EL3a)?
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> In your earlier post you mentioned that you use the flash in every shot,
> why?
I almost always snap strongly back-lit portraits with a long depth of field
aperture. I just love the way the hair and features look strongly back lit,
and I'm bored to tears with the cheap shot of limiting the depth of field
of the background. But, I also don't like harsh shadows. So, in order to
smooth out the shadows, I fill with the flash in front.
This gives me the well-balanced effect I enjoy of a strongly back lit
portrait with low shadows and a great depth of field.
For an example of a typical shot, take Yosemite's Glacier Point in the late
afternoon. The sun is well above and behind the subject, nicely filling the
entire Yosemite Valley so that every feature stands out perfectly. But
without fill flash, the portrait (head shot) would be dark with harsh
shadows. If I change the ISO from 200 to 1600, not only does the picture
seem grainier, but, I never can get the shadows worked out of the portrait.
But, add fill flash in front, and voila!
A perfectly lit close-up portrait, strongly back lit, with a long depth of
field is the result!
Am I wrong? Would simply changing the ISO sensitivity from 200 to 1600
affect the desired effect?
TIA
Amanda W.
Bill Funk
Bill Funk
Because if the mfgr doesn't include a charger, figuring everyone
already has one, he gets dinged for not inculding one.
If he does include one, he gets dinged for including something most
already have.
And making all devices use the same voltage and amperage isn't
practical.
And AAs don't always fit.
>
>Even profits to manufacturers would be greater if they fit this scheme (if
>consumers were to demand this efficiency like they do in telephone and
>stereo input jacks).
>
>Just like we demand that our kitchens have a standard refrigerator and
>microwave cutout, our safety would be greater with one well-built
>well-known charger with well-thought-out safety circuitry.
Kitchens don't have "standard" cutouts for fridges, microwaves,
stovetops, ovens, sinks, etc.
>
>The social issue I wonder about is:
> Why have we consumers NOT demanded this obviously logical universal
>charger feature?
Maybe becasue we know that "standard" "one size fits all" doesn't
work.
>
>TIA,
>Amanda W.
Bill Funk
>How do they make an earpiece and a camera that easily fits in a shirt
>pocket small and lightweight yet still charge but they couldn't do it to a
>huge (in comparison) and heavy (in comparison) Nikon D50 D-SLR?
>
>TIA,
>Amanda W.
Maybe for the same reason cars take gas (usually) and semis take
diesel.
Horses for courses.
Different power needs.
ASAAR
> I don't understand this comment. My Motorola cellphone is small and
> lightweight but it takes an input to charge the batteries. My Motorola
> earpiece is really small and really lightweight and it takes a USB input to
> charge. Even my husband's Casio Exilim EX-Z750 pocket cameracamera is
> really really small and really lightweight, and IT takes an input jack.
>
> How do they make an earpiece and a camera that easily fits in a shirt
> pocket small and lightweight yet still charge but they couldn't do it to a
> huge (in comparison) and heavy (in comparison) Nikon D50 D-SLR?
I explained that in a recent reply. Perhaps you missed it?
In any case, you've stated most of the reasons why. Notice how
the Motorola cellphone, the Motorola earpiece and the Casio camera
are all really small? They also use small batteries. The D50's
batteries are much larger, and while they could be charged by being
connected to a USB port, the USB specifications limit the supplied
5v current to a level that would make charging batteries such as the
D50's take far too long to be practical. The USB is a shared bus,
and if the D50 had an internal charger, it wouldn't suck all of the
available current from the USB, since allowance would have to be
made for the power requirements of other devices that are likely to
be simultaneously connected to the USB.
[from another message:]
> Even if I bought the battery for the $40 to $50 (making the 2-pack $100 vs
> the AA six-pack of $12) ... does that materially change the question?
>
> Please explain your logic,
Umm, SMS rarely does, because as is the case here, his logic is
often illogical. :) He has a near fanatical obsession with showing
that Li-Ion batteries are almost always the preferred type to use.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, but he usually avoids
examining specific cases too carefully, as it would limit his
opportunities to tout the Li-Ion batteries that he so favors.
Don't worry too much about him calling you a troll. That's a
label that quite accurately describes him, not you. Some people
have good reasons for preferring proprietary, relatively expensive
Li-Ion batteries and others have good reasons for preferring to use
AA batteries. He has difficulties dealing with this concept. :)
Neil Ellwood
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:38:27 +0100, Neil Ellwood wrote:
>
>> The charger for the Canon 350D is so small that it is easy to carry so why
>> bother?
>
> I think you missed the point which was stated in the first post.
>
> We already said:
> - The proprietary charger for my Motorola earpiece is small.
> - The proprietary charger for my IBM ThinkPad is small.
> - The proprietary charger for my Motorola cell phone is small.
> - The proprietary charger for the kids' Nokia cell phones is small.
> - The proprietary charger for the kids' Apple iPod is small.
Think - why do you need to take so many cell phones with you? If the kids
are essential why cannot they carry their own charger?
> - The proprietary
charger for our Linksys Skype telephone is small. -
> The proprietary charger for our Panasonic AA battery charger is small. -
> The proprietary charger for my husband's Exilim EX-Z750 pocketcam is
> small.
> - The proprietary charger for our JVC GR-DVL820U videocam is small. -
> The proprietary charger for our no-name USB hub is small. etc.
>
> Just like nobody thought of luggage wheels twenty years ago, I just want
> to standardize on ONE or TWO universal chargers (USB & AA seem decent).
You seem to need the luggage just for the battery chargers - why not cut
down what you take away with you?
>
> Just like BMW was forced to add basic usable cupholders to their latest
> (2nd generation) automobiles for an audience who demanded it, the
> manufacturers would be forced to have a non-proprietary input jack if we
> consumers simply demanded it!
This helps you to charge your batteries?
>
> I question why consumers haven't demanded a universal input jack for
> chargers (all of which do essentially the same thing). It can't be cost
> because the cost, to both the consumer, & to the manufacturer would be
> VASTLY less to supply and use one reusable charger rather than to employ
> fifteen throw away chargers.
Why haven't you?
>
> Even profits to manufacturers would be greater if they fit this scheme
> (if consumers were to demand this efficiency like they do in telephone
> and stereo input jacks).
Then do it.
>
> Just like we demand that our kitchens have a standard refrigerator and
> microwave cutout, our safety would be greater with one well-built
> well-known charger with well-thought-out safety circuitry.
You demand that they do - I don't.
>
> The social issue I wonder about is:
> Why have we consumers NOT demanded this obviously logical universal
> charger feature?
Don't need them - I don't overload myself.
>
> TIA,
> Amanda W.
Look - your signature is broken.
Neil Ellwood
Research.
John Emmons
flash for every shot. If you like the images you're getting, carry on.
Increasing the ISO will only give you more exposure options, it won't change
the lighting ratio, which is what you're doing with your fill flash.
John E.
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:1muv4g5eei1j5$.16ozubsxg7bxe$.dlg@40tude.net...
Rod Speed
You are wrong. Li-Ion batterys have a better power density than
NiMh. You cant buy AA batterys in Li ion format, essentially because
Li-Ion is too dangerous to be viable in any old charger that may not
even be intended to charge Li-Ion batterys. Significant fire risk.
> Is it an urban legend that AA batteries don't give "about the same"
> power as the most powerful of the Nikon proprietary battery pack
> (EN-EL3a)?
Nope, it a fact that Li-Ion has significantly better power density than NiMH.
It has the major downside that the battery pack needs safety precautions
to ensure that it doesnt catch fire so isnt viable as replaceable AA cells.
The Real Bev
> The reason you're getting the "red-eye" is from using the camera's built in
> flash. The flash is too close to the axis of the lens. Using a larger flash
> will help as would bouncing the flash off the ceiling or even off a wall if
> you get a flash with an adjustable head.
If you need to solve red-eye problems EASILY, download google's picasa.
It has the easiest red-eye correction of any photo-editing software
I've used (not many or in great depth, but gimp and photoshop come to
mind). Draw a box around one eye. Draw a box around the other eye.
There's sort of a complicated dance involved in saving, but not so awful
that it outweighs changing every individual red pixel to black.
> In your earlier post you mentioned that you use the flash in every shot,
> why? Is every photograph you take in extremely low light? You can adjust the
> ISO on the camera to give you better exposures in low light rather than use
> the flash on every shot.
Depends on the camera (Nikon CP800). I have to flash every inside shot
unless I want a picture of a lightbulb or computer screen.
--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's true that Smokey the Bear deserves praise for his
campaign against forest fires, but nobody ever mentions
the boy scouts he kills for their hats.
Anthony Matonak
...
> Just like we demand that our kitchens have a standard refrigerator and
> microwave cutout, our safety would be greater with one well-built
> well-known charger with well-thought-out safety circuitry.
You are misinformed. There are no standard refrigerator
and microwave cutouts. There are no standard sizes for
either of these appliances.
Anthony
Jim
>I currently own the Nikon D50 but I'm sick and tired of the stock
> EN-EL3battery going dead after only a day or two on the road (I use the
> flash on every shot). Even carrying an extra EN-EL3a doesn't solve the
> problem as it goes dead just two days later, leaving me in the lurch not
> even a week into my trip.
through the week.
Does Quantum sell an adapter for their battery that will connect to a D50?
That thing will last a very long time.
Jim
Charlie Choc
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:39:30 GMT, John Emmons wrote:
>
>> In your earlier post you mentioned that you use the flash in every shot,
>> why?
>
>I almost always snap strongly back-lit portraits with a long depth of field
>aperture. I just love the way the hair and features look strongly back lit,
>and I'm bored to tears with the cheap shot of limiting the depth of field
>of the background. But, I also don't like harsh shadows. So, in order to
>smooth out the shadows, I fill with the flash in front.
>
Have you tried using a reflector? On back lit photos you already have a light
source.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>How do they make an earpiece and a camera that easily fits in a shirt
>pocket small and lightweight yet still charge but they couldn't do it to a
>huge (in comparison) and heavy (in comparison) Nikon D50 D-SLR?
Your question almost touches right on the exact reason. Those
small lightweight items all have relatively small lightweight
batteries. The "charge" required is also small, and matches the
power available from a USB port.
A DSLR is significantly larger, with a significantly greater power
requirement. Not that it couldn't be charged from a USB port, just
that it would take a *long* time. How long? Pop the battery out
of a cell phone and compare its size to the battery for a Nikon D50,
and figure the same ratio is the least that would be required for
recharging.
If the battery is 5 times larger, the charge will take at least
5 times as long, probably a little more. So while a cell phone
might charge up in 2-3 hours, it might take 10 or 15 hours to
charge the camera. (That might be conservative too, and the
larger batteries might take closer to 10 times as long to
charge...)
Comparing to a quick charger plugged into AC power that takes 90
minutes for a full charge, it is easy to see why the USB charge
option isn't viable for the larger DSLRs.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
J. Clarke
There's no standard dimension for the appliances but that does not mean that
there is no space provided for them in the layout of kitchens. A standard
cutout does not require a standard size for the object that fits in the
cutout, only that the cutout be larger than the majority of such appliances
on the market.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Amanda Williams
>> How does that tell us if the supplier is known to be reputable or not?
That's exactly what I'm doing.
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> resellerratings.com will help in that respect.
Wow. Nice. Very nice.
This is wonderful information.
I'll check out the $11 dollar battery reseller if I can.
Amanda W.
Bob Ward
<bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>John Emmons wrote:
>
>> The reason you're getting the "red-eye" is from using the camera's built in
>> flash. The flash is too close to the axis of the lens. Using a larger flash
>> will help as would bouncing the flash off the ceiling or even off a wall if
>> you get a flash with an adjustable head.
>
>If you need to solve red-eye problems EASILY, download google's picasa.
> It has the easiest red-eye correction of any photo-editing software
>I've used (not many or in great depth, but gimp and photoshop come to
>mind). Draw a box around one eye. Draw a box around the other eye.
>There's sort of a complicated dance involved in saving, but not so awful
>that it outweighs changing every individual red pixel to black.
>
>> In your earlier post you mentioned that you use the flash in every shot,
>> why? Is every photograph you take in extremely low light? You can adjust the
>> ISO on the camera to give you better exposures in low light rather than use
>> the flash on every shot.
>
>Depends on the camera (Nikon CP800). I have to flash every inside shot
>unless I want a picture of a lightbulb or computer screen.
Photoshop Elements 4.0 can do it automatically, as the files are
imported. I don't think it can get much easier than that.
It also has a face recognition algorythm that will go through your
database and let you add a label for every face it detects. Perhaps a
future release will extend that to recognizing and identifying
everyone you know in every shot.
Bob Ward
Of course it helps your math a lot if you continue to ignore
suggestions that you buy less expensive after-market batteries for
your Nikon.
I won't own a camera that uses AA batteries, because it's easier to
number four proprietary batteries and keep track of which ones have
been used than it is to track a handful of AA batteries.
SMS
> Are you SURE that is a correct statement (or is it an old-wives tale)?
>
> Assuming you meant AA (which is what we were comparing), it seems the
> standard NiMH batteries give "about as much" power as the proprietary
> Li-Ion proprietary batteries (see all my math below).
>
> We already did the math earlier which determined six $2 dollars each
> Panasonic 2400 mAh AA batteries gave us 7.2 volts and 2400 mAh of power ...
> while two $40-$50 dollars each Nikon En-EL3 batteries gave us about the
> same power at 7.4 volts and 1400 mhA each (1400 x 2 = 2800 mAh).
I suggest that you read http://batterydata.com
Li-Ion rechargeable batteries have the following advantages over NiMH
rechargeable batteries:
1. Much lower self-discharge rate (except for Sanyo Eneloop NiMH
batteries)
2. Higher maximum number of charge/discharge cycles
3. Higher energy density in terms of both weight and volume
4. Far, far better low-temperature performance
5. Comparable cost, when you factor in the higher energy density,
and the maximum number of charge/discharge cycles
6. Universal Li-Ion chargers eliminate the need to carry multiple
chargers with you when traveling.
7. Protection circuitry integral to the battery pack, rather than
integral to the camera
8. Accurate charge level indicator
9. Lower maintenance.
10. Much better selection of higher-end cameras use Li-Ion batteries.
I have the Canon battery grip, and I tried 6 AA batteries just for the
hell of it. Not a good plan. First of all, six good quality 2500mAH AA
NiMH batteries were about $14, while two 1800mAH BP511 batteries are $23.
Two BP511: 1800mAH * 7.4V * 2 = 26.6 WH
Six AA: 2500mAH * 1.2 * 6 = 18 WH
Besides all the advantages of Li-Ion, the cost per cycle (if the maximum
number of cycles of each battery is used) is identical. But even if the
cost of Li-Ion was slightly more, it'd be worth it.
Amanda Williams
> Of course it helps your math a lot if you continue to ignore
> suggestions that you buy less expensive after-market batteries for
> your Nikon.
OK. I'll readily admit it. You are really confusing me, Bob.
Are you saying that the six AA NiMH batteries compare in price to two
Lithium-ion EN-EL3 batteries?
Or, are you saying the power of the six AA batteries (2400 mAh) does not
compare to the power of the two EN-EL3 batteries (1400 x 2 = 2800 mAh).
I'm confused about your point.
Which of the two are you trying to tell us?
TIA,
Amanda W.
Amanda Williams
> I suggest that you read http://batterydata.com
> Li-Ion rechargeable batteries have the following advantages
> 1. Lower self-discharge
> 2. Higher number of cycles
> 3. Higher energy density
> 4. Better low-temperature performance
> 5. Comparable cost
> 6. Universal Li-Ion chargers
> 7. Protection circuitry integral to the battery
> 8. Accurate charge level indicator
> 9. Lower maintenance.
> 10. Higher-end cameras use Li-Ion batteries.
This is seemingly good information ... until you look analytically.
Let's pick one or two or three of your points above to see if these
arguments actually hold any water for this discussion of the Nikon D50
D-SLR.
I am particularly interested in item number 6. Where can I find this
"Universal Li-Ion Charger" that will not only charge my Nikon EN-EL3a but
also my Nikon Coolpix 5000 EN-EL1 and my JVC GR-DVL820U ER-C620 battery?
If your statement is even partially true, it would be a breakthrough in
battery technology of the order I was suggesting (i.e., universal USB
chargers).
Likewise with the higher energy density. Why is it that six very small and
lightweight AA batteries have about the same energy as two much larger and
heavier Nikon EN-EL3a batteries?
And, how is there "lower maintenance" for a sealed Li-Ion battery pack
(where the reverse polarity of just one cell cannot be resolved without
breaking the battery pack open and unsoldering the connections) vs the
perfectly reasonable replacement of a bad cell in AA technology (not
counting the fact that reverse polarity rarely occurs with AA cells because
they are constantly switched about in different orders with each use).
Can you explain these three anomolies?
- Where is this universal Li-Ion charger you bespeak of?
- Why doesn't our math support your higher-density argument?
- How can a sealed pack where one dead cell kills all give you lower
maintenance?
Please advise,
TIA,
Amanda W.
nospam
Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:07:55 -0700, SMS wrote:
>
> > I suggest that you read http://batterydata.com
> > Li-Ion rechargeable batteries have the following advantages
> > 1. Lower self-discharge
> > 2. Higher number of cycles
> > 3. Higher energy density
> > 4. Better low-temperature performance
> > 5. Comparable cost
> > 6. Universal Li-Ion chargers
> > 7. Protection circuitry integral to the battery
> > 8. Accurate charge level indicator
> > 9. Lower maintenance.
> > 10. Higher-end cameras use Li-Ion batteries.
>
> This is seemingly good information ... until you look analytically.
you catch on quick. sms can't (or won't) admit that there are
alternatives to li-ion batteries, and that they aren't ideal in all
situations.
> Let's pick one or two or three of your points above to see if these
> arguments actually hold any water for this discussion of the Nikon D50
> D-SLR.
>
> I am particularly interested in item number 6. Where can I find this
> "Universal Li-Ion Charger" that will not only charge my Nikon EN-EL3a but
> also my Nikon Coolpix 5000 EN-EL1 and my JVC GR-DVL820U ER-C620 battery?
don't forget that the 'universal li-ion charger' also needs to charge
your cellular phone, laptop computer, portable photo viewer, ipod, gps
and whatever else you may have that has a li-ion battery.
it simply does not exist.
SMS
> I am particularly interested in item number 6. Where can I find this
> "Universal Li-Ion Charger" that will not only charge my Nikon EN-EL3a but
> also my Nikon Coolpix 5000 EN-EL1 and my JVC GR-DVL820U ER-C620 battery?
It's the Lenmar MSC1USB Mach 1 Fusion All-In-One Speed Charger with USB
output. It can charge all of those, as well as AA and AAA NiMH
batteries, and it has a USB output so you charge your phone
(simultaneously). You'll need one extra plate for the JVC, the plates
for the Nikon batteries are included.
Plate PJ408 (not included), PNEL1, XPA3 (included), XPA5 (included).
Personally, now that chargers are so small, I prefer separate chargers
because I can charge all the devices simultaneously, at night.
> If your statement is even partially true, it would be a breakthrough in
> battery technology of the order I was suggesting (i.e., universal USB
> chargers).
The problem with a USB charger is that the USB port doesn't put out
enough current for most Li-Ion camera batteries, or even enough to
quickly charge 4 AA NiMH batteries (I had a USB 4AA charger, and it
worked, but it was pretty slow).
> Likewise with the higher energy density. Why is it that six very small and
> lightweight AA batteries have about the same energy as two much larger and
> heavier Nikon EN-EL3a batteries?
They don't. Look at the higher capacity EN-EL3 batteries that are around
1900mAH * 7.4V.
The lower maintenance is because the Li-Ion cells are less trouble to
keep charged. The NiMH cells have a high self-discharge rate, you can't
just throw six of them into your camera bag and expect them to be useful
a couple of months later. You have to keep the NiMH topped off, yet
trickle charging is not advised, so you should keep unused ones in a
timer controlled charger. It's also a hassle to keep track of six AA
batteries, versus one or two Li-Ion packs, in terms of which cells go
with which set, and which are charged and which are discharged.
cjcampbell
Amanda Williams wrote:
>
> So, I'm ditching the Nikon D50 for a digital SLR that takes AA batteries. I
> found a few from Fuji and Pentax but none from Nikon. Did I miss something?
>
> So, I ask:
> Is there a modern D-SLR camera from Nikon (one that takes AA batteries)?
> Or, at least a modern AA battery pack for the Nikon D50 D-SLR?
There is a AA battery pack for the D200, but I don't know about the D50.
ASAAR
> Just think - if the D50 could use AA batteries, you might need a case to get
> through the week.
Yes, assuming that alkaline AA batteries would be used. That's
certainly a good solution for some cameras, depending on how they're
used. But you're well off the mark in this case, since the
discussion is about wanting to use NiMH batteries instead, and if
they could be used, only two sets would be sufficient. If the D50
had been designed to use AA cells, it might well have used only 4 of
them, which is the number used by several other DSLRs as well as the
number used by some older Nikon film SLRs. That adds up to 8 AA
cells. If a battery grip was used, the number needed for two sets
might increase to 12, but even that number hardly amounts to a
"case". Let me say it again. Alkaline, si. NiMH, no. :)
> Does Quantum sell an adapter for their battery that will connect to a D50?
> That thing will last a very long time.
And it might weigh as much as a case full of AA batteries. <g>
ASAAR
> The lower maintenance is because the Li-Ion cells are less trouble to
> keep charged. The NiMH cells have a high self-discharge rate, you can't
> just throw six of them into your camera bag and expect them to be useful
> a couple of months later.
I don't want to call you "stupid". Really I don't. But you
either obliviously miss so many things or you intentionally ignore
them, and if you're guilty of the latter it would be worse than
being guilty of mere stupidity. Or you may be guilty of both.
The OP has clearly stated that the way she uses her D50 requires
that the Li-Ion batteries need to be recharged every day or two. If
NiMH batteries were used instead, they too would need to be
recharged every day or two. There isn't an NiMH cell ever made that
has such a high self discharge rate that it could possibly be
noticed when using batteries that way. It would only start to be a
problem if the batteries were used so lightly that they'd need to be
recharged every month or two.
And that isn't the case here.
And you know it.
But you carry on, regardless.
It would seem that the operative word is "both".
Bob Ward
My experience using digital cameras is that the proprietary Li-Ion
batterys work out better.
In the course of my shooting (I do virtual tours for realtors) I shoot
from 400 - 600 frames per day. My Olympus camera uses a Li-Ion
battery that generally needs to be changed every other day. I prefer
to replace the battetry every night, so I have a fully charged battery
for the following day. I have four batteries in all, so I always
have three fully charged spares in an emergency.
If I were using a camera that required AA batteries, I would have to
carry a minimum of 16 AA cells to replicate the reserve I currently
have. Actyually, I'm pretty sure that the NiCad AAs don't have the
same duration as the Li-Ion batteries, but even if they did, the
logistics of juggling four sets of four AAs, keeping track of which
are charged and which are exhausted would be much more complex.
Altrhough the factory batteries cost around $40 - 50, I can buy the
aftermarket ones for $12.00 each.
I find it difficult to believe that the current demands for the OP's
vacation photos would be any greater than what I experience, so it
should be easy enough to carry two or three spare Li-Ion batteries and
recharge them each night for the following day.
From Nikon's site:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25216
Incredible Battery Performance - with EN-EL3 Rechargeable Battery: The
EN-EL3 rechargeable lithium-ion battery increases energy capacity to
shoot approximately 2,000 images. The new Quick Charger MH-18a is
smaller than the original MH-18, and is capable of charging both the
EN-EL3a and EN-EL3 batteries.
http://sterlingtek.com/twonienba.html lists TWO Nikon EN-EL3
Equivalent battery packs for $34.98 - they state that their equivalent
is 1400 mAh, compared to the Nikon genuine battery at 1600 mAh, at
$37.99 suggested retail each.
All things considered, I think one would be missing the boat to
continue to insist that NiCad AA cells are a superior solution to the
Li-Ions in this application.
Mark˛
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:bDQyg.16610$6w.12550@fed1read11...
>
>> The Canon 20D, 30D and 5D can all be operated using AAs if you have
>> the vertical grip. When you buy the grip (designed to use either
>> one or two 511 batteries), it includes a battery cartridge that
>> holds 6 AAs. The cartridge fits nicely into the grip...
>
> Watch out on some earlier BG-E2. It somehow does not like using
> rechargable NiMH at all.
> 2 -5 shots .. then kaput :D
Actually, my grip for the 5D is the BG-E4...so I don't know about the E2.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark˛ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
ASAAR
> My experience using digital cameras is that the proprietary Li-Ion
> batterys work out better.
Your experience is limited, and for some uses Li-Ion batteries are
the better choice. For other uses they aren't. Please don't be
another SMS and argue that Li-Ion batteries are better for all
cameras and for all shooting styles. What works for you may also
work for some others, but it won't be the best choice for everyone.
> In the course of my shooting (I do virtual tours for realtors) I shoot
> from 400 - 600 frames per day. My Olympus camera uses a Li-Ion
> battery that generally needs to be changed every other day. I prefer
> to replace the battetry every night, so I have a fully charged battery
> for the following day. I have four batteries in all, so I always
> have three fully charged spares in an emergency.
>
> If I were using a camera that required AA batteries, I would have to
> carry a minimum of 16 AA cells to replicate the reserve I currently
> have. Actyually, I'm pretty sure that the NiCad AAs don't have the
> same duration as the Li-Ion batteries, but even if they did, the
> logistics of juggling four sets of four AAs, keeping track of which
> are charged and which are exhausted would be much more complex.
First, you haven't adequately defined your shooting style. If you
shoot 400 to 600 shots per day and the battery would last for two
days of shooting, that adds up to the battery being good for about
1000 shots per charge, give or take a few. You haven't stated the
percentage of shots that use the flash, but with those numbers it
must be very few. You also didn't indicate the type of camera or
its age, whether P&S or DSLR, but I'll assume DSLR (I may be
mistaken) because small P&S cameras usually get far fewer than 1000
shots per charge using Li-Ion batteries. It usually ranges between
250 and 500 shots per charge. DSLRs tend to do much better.
But while carrying so many Li-Ion batteries may be practical from
an "insurance" standpoint, that would be in large part due to them
being Li-Ion batteries. There would be little need to "replicate"
the same number of NiMH backup sets. This is because if the
batteries fail or you accidentally lose one or two you'd be unlikely
to get a quick, same day replacement, and if you did, you'd have to
charge it before you could use it. This is probably an extremely
unlikely scenario, but pro's might be considered foolish if they
didn't take extraordinary precautions. With NiMH batteries on the
other hand, only one extra set would suffice. BTW, you're right
about NiCads not being able to compete with Li-Ion batteries, but I
hope that that's a typo, because virtually no one uses them in
cameras anymore. They use NiMH batteries instead. If you followed
the math where 6 AA NiMH batteries were compared with the EN-EL3 and
EN-EL3a, if you reduced the number of NiMH cells, you'd see that
four of the latest 2,700 mAh batteries store a slightly greater
amount of energy (at 4.8 volts) than the higher capacity EN-EL3a
does (1,500 mAh at 7.4 volts). So a D50A had been designed to use 4
AA cells, it should be able to last just as long on a charge as the
D50 does using one EN-EL3a. This means that a pro would only have
to carry one spare backup set of four AA cells. That would provide,
with the set contained in the camera, enough capacity to shoot for 4
full days, so if the batteries are charges nightly, the photographer
will simply will not ever more than that. The odds are very high
that during a single day's shoot that even that one backup set would
ever be needed. But if an unexpected disaster struck, there's one
big difference between the two battery types. Virtually all
photographers will be able to buy another set of 4 alkaline AA
batteries within minutes. No time wasted waiting for them to be
charged. They wouldn't last as long as NiMH batteries though,
usually being good for 1/2 the number of shots. But then by
requirements stated by you and the OP, even those lesser alkaline
batteries should be good for a full day's shooting.
For what it's worth, I don't use (as yet) a DSLR. But my Fuji P&S
camera uses 4 AA cells, and if I also don't use the flash very much,
can get close to 1,000 shots per charge from NiMH cells, so my
camera would also be good for two days worth of shooting at the rate
of 400 to 600 shots per day, and it has no optical viewfinder
(either the EVF or the LCD is always on). Canon's A610/A620 which
does have an optical viewfinder does much better, being good for up
to 1,500 shots per charge.
> Altrhough the factory batteries cost around $40 - 50, I can buy the
> aftermarket ones for $12.00 each.
>
> I find it difficult to believe that the current demands for the OP's
> vacation photos would be any greater than what I experience, so it
> should be easy enough to carry two or three spare Li-Ion batteries and
> recharge them each night for the following day.
That's a possibility, but dependable, reliable aftermarket Li-Ion
batteries generally cost more than $12. More like $20. And either
way it's a good deal more expensive than 4 NiMH batteries, the best
of which can be easily found in numerous stores for $8 to $10. One
could also scour the internet looking for good deals and perhaps
find some for about $4 or $5 per set, but I wouldn't trust them any
more than the $12 Li-Ion batteries. Some may be worth getting, but
too many people have reported having problems with low cost internet
and eBay purchases to make it worth the few dollars saved. I notice
that you worded the statement carefully. You didn't say that you
buy and use the $12 Li-Ion batteries, just that you *can* buy them
for that price. Well, I believe you. You and anyone else certainly
can buy some for that price. But, uh, spill the beans, would you?
Are those the ones you use? I'm not saying that you don't, but you
didn't make it clear exactly what you use.
> http://sterlingtek.com/twonienba.html lists TWO Nikon EN-EL3
> Equivalent battery packs for $34.98 - they state that their equivalent
> is 1400 mAh, compared to the Nikon genuine battery at 1600 mAh, at
> $37.99 suggested retail each.
So four of Sterlingtek's batteries would cost $70. Four genuine
Nikon batteries would cost $152. And four top quality NiMH set
would cost $32. But as shown above, only two AA sets (for $16)
would really be needed.
> All things considered, I think one would be missing the boat to
> continue to insist that NiCad AA cells are a superior solution to the
> Li-Ions in this application.
Again, NiCad AA cells were never mentioned. But in this
application, two sets of NiMH AA cells would do just as well as any
number of Li-Ion batteries. You could have tried to make the case
that carrying 10 backup batteries would be even safer, creating
false visions of cases upon cases of AA batteries, but I think that
while the 4 sets that you use go slightly beyond the practical point
of diminishing returns, I've shown that in some rare cases it might
be justifiable. But for NiMH batteries, carrying more than one
backup set pushes you across the diminishing returns line. But
whatever floats your boat . . . :)
Also note that while the Li-Ion batteries may cost more, I did not
use that or any other reason to justify saying that NiMH batteries
would provide a better solution. Just that for this application,
they would do just as well as Li-Ion batteries. A point that some
(hint: SMS) seem incapable of understanding.
David J. Littleboy
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:35:56 -0700, Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> My experience using digital cameras is that the proprietary Li-Ion
>> batterys work out better.
>
> Your experience is limited, and for some uses Li-Ion batteries are
> the better choice. For other uses they aren't. Please don't be
> another SMS and argue that Li-Ion batteries are better for all
> cameras and for all shooting styles. What works for you may also
> work for some others, but it won't be the best choice for everyone.
Maybe. But schluping around gross number of AA cells, dealing with the
crappy battery compartment covers so many AA cell cameras have, the
time/inconvenience required to change a set of cells, all adds up to AA
cameras having been an exceedingly unpleasant experience here.
It really sounds to me that people who insist on AA cell cameras are
shooting themselves in the foot. Big time.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bob Ward
EVERY shot for interiors (about 90%) of my daily count) usees flash.
I use an Olympus 8080WZ - not a DSLR, but it fits my need far better
than any DSLR I've looked at. The features that make this true:
DSLR's don't appear to have any capability to compose shots on the LCD
- they are apparently only expected to be used at eye level. 100% of
my shots are from a tripod - I like being able to compose the shot
using both eyes, standing back from the camera. Slow release time is
not a factor - houses very rarely move while I am shooting them.
The 8080WZ has an articulated LCD screen - I can shoot from high or
low angles easily when in landscape mode - or if I'm using portrait
mode, as I do for panoramic shots (we stitch the pans from a series of
stills) I can use the LCD from the side to frame a shot in a small
bathroom.
You don't understand the working conditions. Being able to find a
replacement battery at a nearby drugstore is simply not an option. My
schedule involves at least three people coordinating to be in the same
spot at the same time - I have to have everything I need in my bag
when I arrive at the location, or I risk losing a client. In that
case I certainly don't think that having three spare batteries
(weighing less than a pound) is overkill - losing a single assignment
would cost far more than the cost of the batteries. "Should be good
enough" isn't.
> For what it's worth, I don't use (as yet) a DSLR. But my Fuji P&S
>camera uses 4 AA cells, and if I also don't use the flash very much,
>can get close to 1,000 shots per charge from NiMH cells, so my
>camera would also be good for two days worth of shooting at the rate
>of 400 to 600 shots per day, and it has no optical viewfinder
>(either the EVF or the LCD is always on). Canon's A610/A620 which
>does have an optical viewfinder does much better, being good for up
>to 1,500 shots per charge.
>
So you are comparing your apoples to my oranges sight-unseen, and
assuming I am wrong. I've been doing this for six years now, and,
because I am prepared for equipment malfunctions, I've never had to
walk off the job to locate an inferior replacement.
>
>> Altrhough the factory batteries cost around $40 - 50, I can buy the
>> aftermarket ones for $12.00 each.
>>
>> I find it difficult to believe that the current demands for the OP's
>> vacation photos would be any greater than what I experience, so it
>> should be easy enough to carry two or three spare Li-Ion batteries and
>> recharge them each night for the following day.
>
> That's a possibility, but dependable, reliable aftermarket Li-Ion
>batteries generally cost more than $12. More like $20. And either
>way it's a good deal more expensive than 4 NiMH batteries, the best
>of which can be easily found in numerous stores for $8 to $10. One
>could also scour the internet looking for good deals and perhaps
>find some for about $4 or $5 per set, but I wouldn't trust them any
>more than the $12 Li-Ion batteries. Some may be worth getting, but
>too many people have reported having problems with low cost internet
>and eBay purchases to make it worth the few dollars saved. I notice
>that you worded the statement carefully. You didn't say that you
>buy and use the $12 Li-Ion batteries, just that you *can* buy them
>for that price. Well, I believe you. You and anyone else certainly
>can buy some for that price. But, uh, spill the beans, would you?
>Are those the ones you use? I'm not saying that you don't, but you
>didn't make it clear exactly what you use.
>
I use the $12 aftermarket batteries - I don't see how I could have
made that any more clear. Even if there were a high failure rate
(I've certainly not seen that, but, hey - I only stake my professional
future on it - what would I know?) Thay is why I carry multiple
backups. It's cheaper than looking for multiple new clients.
>
>
>> http://sterlingtek.com/twonienba.html lists TWO Nikon EN-EL3
>> Equivalent battery packs for $34.98 - they state that their equivalent
>> is 1400 mAh, compared to the Nikon genuine battery at 1600 mAh, at
>> $37.99 suggested retail each.
>
> So four of Sterlingtek's batteries would cost $70. Four genuine
>Nikon batteries would cost $152. And four top quality NiMH set
>would cost $32. But as shown above, only two AA sets (for $16)
>would really be needed.
>
As shown where above?
>
>> All things considered, I think one would be missing the boat to
>> continue to insist that NiCad AA cells are a superior solution to the
>> Li-Ions in this application.
>
> Again, NiCad AA cells were never mentioned. But in this
>application, two sets of NiMH AA cells would do just as well as any
>number of Li-Ion batteries. You could have tried to make the case
>that carrying 10 backup batteries would be even safer, creating
>false visions of cases upon cases of AA batteries, but I think that
>while the 4 sets that you use go slightly beyond the practical point
>of diminishing returns, I've shown that in some rare cases it might
>be justifiable. But for NiMH batteries, carrying more than one
>backup set pushes you across the diminishing returns line. But
>whatever floats your boat . . . :)
You'd better stay on dry land - you are depending too much on a
limited number of batteries.
>
> Also note that while the Li-Ion batteries may cost more, I did not
>use that or any other reason to justify saying that NiMH batteries
>would provide a better solution. Just that for this application,
>they would do just as well as Li-Ion batteries. A point that some
>(hint: SMS) seem incapable of understanding.
For some applications, perhaps. In my case, I prefer to err on the
side of caution. If it was just a vacation, I could just buy
postcards to replace what I missed.
Bob Ward
Perhaps that represents the bulk of their shooting.
ASAAR
>> Your experience is limited, and for some uses Li-Ion batteries are
>> the better choice. For other uses they aren't. Please don't be
>> another SMS and argue that Li-Ion batteries are better for all
>> cameras and for all shooting styles. What works for you may also
>> work for some others, but it won't be the best choice for everyone.
>
> Maybe. But schluping around gross number of AA cells, dealing with the
> crappy battery compartment covers so many AA cell cameras have, the
> time/inconvenience required to change a set of cells, all adds up to AA
> cameras having been an exceedingly unpleasant experience here.
"Schluping"?
Ancient history. Either that or you're only familiar with the
wrong cameras. If you ever get a chance to handle a Fuji S5100,
check the battery compartment cover. It's easy to open but not easy
to do so accidentally. It appears to be much more rugged than any
batter covers I've used, and that's not restricted just to cameras.
And you're also mistaken when you generalize, implying that by using
a camera that uses AA batteries one would have to schlepp around a
gross number of AA cells. When I bought the Fuji nearly 2 years ago
I also thought that battery life would be less than ideal, my only
knowledge being from reading many horror stories, and from using
Canon's Powershots S10 and S20, which while they used a proprietary
battery pack, in fact the packs contain 5 AAA NiMH cells and didn't
provide very good life. You've been living a very sheltered life or
skipped too many ng messages if you're not aware by now that a good
number of cameras get *excellent* life from AA batteries. From my
*own* experience, which is the polar opposite of yours, the
batteries last so long that when I've started the day with either a
freshly charged set, or a fresh set of alkalines, I've never come
close to needing to change batteries the same day. Several people
here have reported using one set of alkalines for many months
without needing to change them. So what's to schlepp? <g>
I'm glad that you've missed my many retellings of how long
alkalines last in the Fuji, since it gives me another opportunity to
wash away veils of ignorance once more. I assume that you prefer
knowledge to ignorance? :) Anyway, I originally though that
alkalines would be nearly worthless in the Fuji, but was spurred to
test the 4 alkaline AAs supplied with the camera several months
after buying it. Following the CIPA procedure outlined in the
manual, I got a bit more than the claimed 200 shots before the
batteries conked out. (NiMH AAs tested using CIPA are supposed to
be good for 400 shots per charge). The CIPA procedure requires
several types of energy wasteful operations, including frequent
zooming of the lens from one extreme to the other, using full
powered flashes for every other shot, keeping the EVF or LCD display
on (no way around that one with the Fuji), etc. Being aware of the
alkaline's ability to rebound after resting a few minutes, I thought
that I'd see if I could squeeze another dozen or more shots by not
using the flash from that point on. The camera surprised me by
managing to take more than another 400 shots over the next couple of
days. Over 600 shots on a single set of alkalines, 100 of them
using full powered flash seems quite good to me. YMMV.
The net result is that while you may have had unpleasant
experiences with cameras that use AA batteries, it has been just the
opposite here. And this good performance and isn't exclusive to
Fuji cameras. Canon's A610 and A620 gets significantly better life
from AA batteries, and I'm sure that some of the cameras from other
manufacturers aren't too far behind. As for "dealing with the
crappy battery compartment covers", the only problems I recall users
reporting here were that a good number of Kodak battery covers had a
tendency to break. I don't recall the model number (there may have
been more than one model with this fault) nor do I know if the
cameras used AA batteries. I don't recall if it was ever mentioned,
but I suspect that it probably did use AAs. I've also read a number
of camera reviews describing Li-Ion battery compartments that shared
a memory card slot under the same cover. The complaint was that it
made for clumsy, difficult removal of the battery cards, and
compounding the problem was that some of them didn't latch the
battery in place, resulting in batteries falling out of cameras when
cards were removed or swapped. All in all, both AA cells and Li-Ion
batteries have their strong and weak points. But you seem to be
emulating a rather unsavory character here who always tries to
grossly magnify what he imagines are the faults of AA batteries, and
glosses over or ignores the weaknesses of Li-Ion batteries. But it
won't work. I know SMS, and frankly, you're no SMS. :)
> It really sounds to me that people who insist on AA cell cameras are
> shooting themselves in the foot. Big time.
It really sounds to me that you haven't been paying much attention
to how P&S cameras have developed over the last couple of years,
concentrating too much on those DSLR behemoths that don't have
"insanely small pixels". Don't drop one with a hefty lens on your
foot or you'll really suffer. Big time.
Note: The use of "Big time" has been used legitimately and in
accordance with the Cheney-Clymer Institute's guidelines. The
failure to properly adhere to those guidelines puts one at great
risk of being "peppered" by bird shot, and not in the vicinity of
the feet.
Joan
--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
"Neil Ellwood" <carl.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.30....@btopenworld.com...
: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:41:06 +1000, Joan wrote:
:
: > Yes. You can point the flash away and use bounced light. You can
use
: > a diffuser to soften the light.
: Or even use available light.
: --
: Neil
: Delete l to reply
ASAAR
> EVERY shot for interiors (about 90%) of my daily count) usees flash.
>
> I use an Olympus 8080WZ - not a DSLR, but it fits my need far better
> than any DSLR I've looked at. The features that make this true:
>
> DSLR's don't appear to have any capability to compose shots on the LCD
> - they are apparently only expected to be used at eye level. 100% of
> my shots are from a tripod - I like being able to compose the shot
> using both eyes, standing back from the camera. Slow release time is
> not a factor - houses very rarely move while I am shooting them.
>
> The 8080WZ has an articulated LCD screen - I can shoot from high or
> low angles easily when in landscape mode - or if I'm using portrait
> mode, as I do for panoramic shots (we stitch the pans from a series of
> stills) I can use the LCD from the side to frame a shot in a small
> bathroom.
It's an excellent camera from what I've heard. When asked to name
a "classic" digital camera, H.P. (from B&H) promptly named the
Olympus C-8080.
> You don't understand the working conditions. Being able to find a
> replacement battery at a nearby drugstore is simply not an option. My
> schedule involves at least three people coordinating to be in the same
> spot at the same time - I have to have everything I need in my bag
> when I arrive at the location, or I risk losing a client. In that
> case I certainly don't think that having three spare batteries
> (weighing less than a pound) is overkill - losing a single assignment
> would cost far more than the cost of the batteries. "Should be good
> enough" isn't.
Yes, I did understand the working conditions. I even admitted
that for your purposes, having 4 batteries seemed reasonable, since
in the unlikely event that something went wrong with the batteries
or if some were accidentally lost, you wouldn't be able to quick
replacement. The point I was making was that another person
preferring to use AA batteries would hardly need to carry 4 sets of
AA batteries. That was an unnecessary extrapolation on your part.
If they're working pros such as yourself they might also prefer to
carry many sets of AA batteries. But the point is that *most*
people, probably including some pros, wouldn't feel an absolute need
to bring along 4 sets of batteries, good for 8 days of shooting.
During a single day's shoot, one backup set would be overkill,
allowing the camera to operate for 4 days. And if something went
wrong, a new set of AAs is only minutes away.
You're also going painting far too dark a picture of the risk
you'd take upsetting and losing a client if your camera used AA
batteries, you brought along only a four day supply, and something
went wrong and you suddenly needed to buy another set quickly. This
is something that may never happen, and if it did, would probably
repeat at extremely long intervals, probably greater than 30 years.
Very improbable. But if it did happen, do you mean to tell us that
you'd have such an unreasonable client that you have to work in
near-slavery conditions. You couldn't take a 5 or 10 minute break
once or twice during the day just to relax and clear your head?
That's all the time it would take for most people to get another set
of alkaline (or lithium) AA batteries unless they were working in
the boonies. And then, knowing you (I think) you'd probably have a
couple of sets of alkaline batteries stored in your car's glove
compartment anyway, just for cases such as this, that would likely
*never* occur. :)
>> For what it's worth, I don't use (as yet) a DSLR. But my Fuji P&S
>> camera uses 4 AA cells, and if I also don't use the flash very much,
>> can get close to 1,000 shots per charge from NiMH cells, so my
>> camera would also be good for two days worth of shooting at the rate
>> of 400 to 600 shots per day, and it has no optical viewfinder
>> (either the EVF or the LCD is always on). Canon's A610/A620 which
>> does have an optical viewfinder does much better, being good for up
>> to 1,500 shots per charge.
>
> So you are comparing your apoples to my oranges sight-unseen, and
> assuming I am wrong. I've been doing this for six years now, and,
> because I am prepared for equipment malfunctions, I've never had to
> walk off the job to locate an inferior replacement.
You're the one that's got it wrong. I haven't assumed that you're
doing anything wrong. Your method works for you and that's fine
with me. You seem to be the one trying to say that other people's
choice are poor ones. But in case you haven't noticed, now you're
contradicting yourself. On the one hand, your Li-Ion batteries are
superior to the "inferior equipment" (AA NiMH batteries). Yet you
worry that it imposes enough risk that you need to carry an
excessively large number of batteries sufficient to last 8 days
when a single battery would be more than enough. Again, that's your
choice and I'm not saying that you shouldn't have made it.
Batteries can fail suddenly, and if one did, you'd feel very secure
knowing that you had three more on hand. But your method isn't the
right way or the wrong way. It may be best for you but it's clearly
not the best method for everyone. They do what they prefer and take
the risks that they are comfortable with. With all of the
risk-worrying you do I certainly hope that you carry at least one
backup C-8080 with you, and I'm sure that I don't have to tell you
why. :)
> I use the $12 aftermarket batteries - I don't see how I could have
> made that any more clear. Even if there were a high failure rate
> (I've certainly not seen that, but, hey - I only stake my professional
> future on it - what would I know?) Thay is why I carry multiple
> backups. It's cheaper than looking for multiple new clients.
Now you're being obtuse. I clearly explained why. You DID NOT
say that you bought and used $12 batteries. You used what some
people would call "weasel words". Words that make it possible to
imply that you buy and use them when in fact you only said that you
*could* buy them for $12. I made that very clear, so if you didn't
know then how you could have made it clearer, now you do. If you go
back and read my last reply once again you'll see that it *was*
clear. You're also making it clear that you'll argue any point no
matter how foolish it might be. Earlier you were stressing the
importance of doing nothing that might displease a client. No cost
or inconvenience would seem to be worth that risk. Now you're
saying that you're willing to risk your professional future, saving
a few dollars by using cheap batteries that are without a doubt
riskier than not only genuine Olympus batteries, but riskier than
the name brand $20 batteries sold by most reputable camera dealers.
>>> http://sterlingtek.com/twonienba.html lists TWO Nikon EN-EL3
>>> Equivalent battery packs for $34.98 - they state that their equivalent
>>> is 1400 mAh, compared to the Nikon genuine battery at 1600 mAh, at
>>> $37.99 suggested retail each.
>>
>> So four of Sterlingtek's batteries would cost $70. Four genuine
>>Nikon batteries would cost $152. And four top quality NiMH set
>>would cost $32. But as shown above, only two AA sets (for $16)
>>would really be needed.
>>
>
> As shown where above?
As shown in the quote that you included in your reply. The quoted
paragraph begins with :
> But while carrying so many Li-Ion batteries may be practical from
>an "insurance" standpoint, that would be in large part due to them
>being Li-Ion batteries. There would be little need to "replicate"
>the same number of NiMH backup sets.
>> Also note that while the Li-Ion batteries may cost more, I did not
>> use that or any other reason to justify saying that NiMH batteries
>> would provide a better solution. Just that for this application,
>> they would do just as well as Li-Ion batteries. A point that some
>>( hint: SMS) seem incapable of understanding.
>
> For some applications, perhaps. In my case, I prefer to err on the
> side of caution. If it was just a vacation, I could just buy
> postcards to replace what I missed.
Most people are cautious. To different degrees. I often bring
along a single backup set of batteries, even though I know that the
fully charged set in the camera will be good for at least several
days. If I brought along a third set of batteries, that wouldn't
indicate an abundance of cautiousness. It would indicate paranoia.
If it turns out that I needed three sets, those are the breaks.
I'm not going to worry about what my experience tells me is probably
a "Century Event". This isn't very different than you carrying 4
cheap batteries for your C-8080, because based on your experience,
they're good enough. But answer this. If you suddenly found that
for whatever reason they were dying at the rate of one every two or
three weeks, would you quickly buy for a higher price four batteries
that most people agree are probably of higher quality (perhaps even
four genuine Olympus label batteries), or would you buy a case of
cheap $12 batteries? <g>
David J. Littleboy
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> And you're also mistaken when you generalize, implying that by using
> a camera that uses AA batteries one would have to schlepp around a
> gross number of AA cells.
You have to carry around exactly four times as many AA cells as proprietary
batteries.
That's a gross number.
Been there. Done that. It's ridiculous.
ASAAR
>> And you're also mistaken when you generalize, implying that by using
>> a camera that uses AA batteries one would have to schlepp around a
>> gross number of AA cells.
>
> You have to carry around exactly four times as many AA cells as proprietary
> batteries.
>
> That's a gross number.
>
> Been there. Done that. It's ridiculous.
You're apparently not above lapsing into trollery or behaving as a
naughty little boy. Despite using 4 AA batteries which go weeks to
months without needing to be changed (when alkalines are used, not
NiMH), the camera remains much smaller and lighter than any of your
DSLRs. That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
second thought, something not possible with your much grosser DSLRs.
Perhaps you should converse with Rita. You both have a penchant for
hyperbole, among other things. :)
David J. Littleboy
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:37:11 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>>> And you're also mistaken when you generalize, implying that by using
>>> a camera that uses AA batteries one would have to schlepp around a
>>> gross number of AA cells.
>>
>> You have to carry around exactly four times as many AA cells as
>> proprietary
>> batteries.
>>
>> That's a gross number.
>>
>> Been there. Done that. It's ridiculous.
> Despite using 4 AA batteries which go weeks to
> months without needing to be changed (when alkalines are used, not
> NiMH), the camera remains much smaller and lighter than any of your
> DSLRs. That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
> second thought, something not possible with your much grosser DSLRs.
Perhaps you should read the title of this thread. (Hint: it ain't about P&S
cameras.)
Charlie Choc
> Despite using 4 AA batteries which go weeks to
>months without needing to be changed (when alkalines are used, not
>NiMH), the camera remains much smaller and lighter than any of your
>DSLRs. That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
>second thought, something not possible with your much grosser DSLRs.
If that's all you want out of a camera use the one in your cell phone.
If you have a DSLR you probably already have at least a couple of lenses to
carry around, so an extra proprietary battery or two and a charger is no big
deal. With a tiny bit of planning you can have plenty of battery capacity for
the shots you expect to take on your trip without having to worry about how
close the nearest convenience store is.
As far as the OP, a reflector and tripod would come closer to resolving most of
her shooting issues than waiting for Nikon to convert to AA batteries. (FWIW, I
have a D-100 with the MB-D-100 and have never used the AA holder that comes with
it, and the holder plus 6AA batteries weighs more that the EN-EL3's anyway).
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
ASAAR
>>> You have to carry around exactly four times as many AA cells as
>>> proprietary
>>> batteries.
>>>
>>> That's a gross number.
>>>
>>> Been there. Done that. It's ridiculous.
>
>> Despite using 4 AA batteries which go weeks to
>> months without needing to be changed (when alkalines are used, not
>> NiMH), the camera remains much smaller and lighter than any of your
>> DSLRs. That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
>> second thought, something not possible with your much grosser DSLRs.
>
> Perhaps you should read the title of this thread. (Hint: it ain't about P&S
> cameras.)
Then when you earlier referred to "schluping around gross number
of AA cells" and "dealing with the crappy battery compartment covers
so many AA cell cameras have" that led to your "exceedingly
unpleasant experience here", exactly which DSLR cameras were you
speaking of? It sure seems as if you were not speaking of DSLRs. Or
are 4 AA batteries somehow not a gross number when used with P&S
cameras, but become a gross amount when used in much larger DSLRs.
Perhaps your hint was a feeble attempt to avoid dealing with the
indefensibly ridiculous statement you made above. As you say that
your opinions are based on your own experiences ("Been there. Done
that."), please name all of those DSLRs that you found so
exceedingly unpleasant to use.
ASAAR
>> Despite using 4 AA batteries which go weeks to
>> months without needing to be changed (when alkalines are used, not
>> NiMH), the camera remains much smaller and lighter than any of your
>> DSLRs. That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
>> second thought, something not possible with your much grosser DSLRs.
>
> If that's all you want out of a camera use the one in your cell phone.
I hope that's not an attempt at being witty or amusing because
it's quite a silly non sequitur, unless you think that because I
prefer the relatively light weight of my 12 oz. camera to that of a
much heavier DSLR, that I'd similarly prefer a 4 or 6 oz. camera to
mine, even though the smaller one takes abysmal pictures. Now that
we can both see how foolish that would be, I suppose it means that
you were attempting to be simultaneously witty and insulting. But
the wit was lacking, and the insult would have more bite if it there
was even the least bit of truth to your statement.
> If you have a DSLR you probably already have at least a couple of lenses to
> carry around, so an extra proprietary battery or two and a charger is no big
> deal. With a tiny bit of planning you can have plenty of battery capacity for
> the shots you expect to take on your trip without having to worry about how
> close the nearest convenience store is.
And whether you carry an extra battery or two is irrelevant. The
camera and lens alone is sufficient to dissuade me from carrying it
around all day. It's not as if I wouldn't want a decent DSLR. But
carrying one all day would be a chore, so it wouldn't be as readily
available as a smaller, lighter camera would be.
> As far as the OP, a reflector and tripod would come closer to resolving most of
> her shooting issues than waiting for Nikon to convert to AA batteries. (FWIW, I
> have a D-100 with the MB-D-100 and have never used the AA holder that comes with
> it, and the holder plus 6AA batteries weighs more that the EN-EL3's anyway).
Perhaps a reflector would help somewhat (I'm not sure about this),
but from the description of why she preferred using lots of flash,
how would a tripod help? The problem wasn't a lack of light that
would be helped by the tripod permitting longer exposures. She said
that she preferred strongly back-lit portraits and needed to use the
flash to fill in what would otherwise be harsh shadows.
And I don't recall hearing her say that she would have a problem
with the slightly increased weight of AA batteries. She complained
about the large number of different battery chargers she has to
bring along. I think that she wasn't originally thinking of a
larger battery grip that could use 6 AA batteries, but more along
the lines of wanting a camera that used AA batteries as the native
battery type. All of the ones I'm familiar with or read about, from
earlier Nikons film SLRs to current non-Nikon DSLRs, they use 4, not
6 AA batteries. And those 4 provide slightly more energy than the
EN-EL3 or EN-EL3a battery packs. I do agree with your point that
considering the already considerable weight of a DSLR, another
EN-EL3 or two wouldn't give you a noticeably larger burden to deal
with. But by the same token, neither would the difference in weight
between an EN-EL3 and 4 AA cells. It would probably amount to only
an extra ounce or two.
Charlie Choc
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:30:41 -0400, Charlie Choc wrote:
>
>>> Despite using 4 AA batteries which go weeks to
>>> months without needing to be changed (when alkalines are used, not
>>> NiMH), the camera remains much smaller and lighter than any of your
>>> DSLRs. That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
>>> second thought, something not possible with your much grosser DSLRs.
>>
>> If that's all you want out of a camera use the one in your cell phone.
>
> I hope that's not an attempt at being witty or amusing because
>it's quite a silly non sequitur, unless you think that because I
>prefer the relatively light weight of my 12 oz. camera to that of a
>much heavier DSLR, that I'd similarly prefer a 4 or 6 oz. camera to
>mine, even though the smaller one takes abysmal pictures. Now that
>we can both see how foolish that would be, I suppose it means that
>you were attempting to be simultaneously witty and insulting. But
>the wit was lacking, and the insult would have more bite if it there
>was even the least bit of truth to your statement.
>
You said "That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
second thought", you didn't mention picture quality - thus the comment. The
range of quality from high end lenses on DSLR's through P&S digitals to cell
phones is large and what you use depends on a balance between results and
convenience. I have an Optio WP I carry with me fly fishing, but I don't use it
much for landscapes. I think you're too sensitive to being insulted if you
thought that's what I was trying to do.
>
>
>> If you have a DSLR you probably already have at least a couple of lenses to
>> carry around, so an extra proprietary battery or two and a charger is no big
>> deal. With a tiny bit of planning you can have plenty of battery capacity for
>> the shots you expect to take on your trip without having to worry about how
>> close the nearest convenience store is.
>
> And whether you carry an extra battery or two is irrelevant. The
>camera and lens alone is sufficient to dissuade me from carrying it
>around all day. It's not as if I wouldn't want a decent DSLR. But
>carrying one all day would be a chore, so it wouldn't be as readily
>available as a smaller, lighter camera would be.
Again, it depends on what kind of results you want. Pocket cameras are certainly
more convenient that lugging around a lot of gear and many of them have decent
optics and take nice photos, but they aren't as flexible as DSLR's.
>
>
>> As far as the OP, a reflector and tripod would come closer to resolving most of
>> her shooting issues than waiting for Nikon to convert to AA batteries. (FWIW, I
>> have a D-100 with the MB-D-100 and have never used the AA holder that comes with
>> it, and the holder plus 6AA batteries weighs more that the EN-EL3's anyway).
>
> Perhaps a reflector would help somewhat (I'm not sure about this),
>but from the description of why she preferred using lots of flash,
>how would a tripod help? The problem wasn't a lack of light that
>would be helped by the tripod permitting longer exposures. She said
>that she preferred strongly back-lit portraits and needed to use the
>flash to fill in what would otherwise be harsh shadows.
She also mentioned later in the thread that she needed the flash for low light
situations.
>
> And I don't recall hearing her say that she would have a problem
>with the slightly increased weight of AA batteries. She complained
>about the large number of different battery chargers she has to
>bring along. I think that she wasn't originally thinking of a
>larger battery grip that could use 6 AA batteries, but more along
>the lines of wanting a camera that used AA batteries as the native
>battery type. All of the ones I'm familiar with or read about, from
>earlier Nikons film SLRs to current non-Nikon DSLRs, they use 4, not
>6 AA batteries. And those 4 provide slightly more energy than the
>EN-EL3 or EN-EL3a battery packs.
Nikon DSLR's *do* use 6 AA batteries, though, not 4.
>I do agree with your point that
>considering the already considerable weight of a DSLR, another
>EN-EL3 or two wouldn't give you a noticeably larger burden to deal
>with. But by the same token, neither would the difference in weight
>between an EN-EL3 and 4 AA cells. It would probably amount to only
>an extra ounce or two.
IMO, the bulk of this thread has nothing to do with solving her shooting issues.
If she can't shoot without fill flash she should just get an external flash that
*does* use AA batteries. I get 1500 or so shots from my EN-EL3 between charges
without using the on camera flash so she should only have to charge the AA
batteries daily.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
Paul Allen
Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:07:55 -0700, SMS wrote:
>
> > I suggest that you read http://batterydata.com
> > Li-Ion rechargeable batteries have the following advantages
> > 1. Lower self-discharge
> > 2. Higher number of cycles
> > 3. Higher energy density
> > 4. Better low-temperature performance
> > 5. Comparable cost
> > 6. Universal Li-Ion chargers
> > 7. Protection circuitry integral to the battery
> > 8. Accurate charge level indicator
> > 9. Lower maintenance.
> > 10. Higher-end cameras use Li-Ion batteries.
>
> This is seemingly good information ... until you look analytically.
You're catching on. Steve posts this dubious list and the link to
his pro-Li-ion web site periodically. I don't have any evidence
that he's being actively dishonest. He's just stuck on this mission
of converting the world to the "one true battery". When you get him
talking about something other than batteries, he can be quite rational.
I think he's a feature, not a bug. :-)
If you point out that some of his ten advantages aren't really
advantages in the real world (1, 2, 3, 6, 9), some are actually
disadvantages (7), and some are plainly irrelevant (10), he won't
change his list. (Well, the future's hard to predict. He's
posted this identical list multiple times in the past.)
The bottom line is that you buy equipment based on a constellation
of features. For a particular application some characteristic of
the battery technology may be a deciding factor. Most of the time,
other things (optics, usability, resolution, speed, image quality,
for example) are more important than the choice of battery technology.
You pick the equipment that meets your needs and live with whatever
compromises its battery technology imposes.
Paul Allen (who owns a camera with a proprietary Li-ion battery)
SMS
> [BnH] wrote:
>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:bDQyg.16610$6w.12550@fed1read11...
>>
>>> The Canon 20D, 30D and 5D can all be operated using AAs if you have
>>> the vertical grip. When you buy the grip (designed to use either
>>> one or two 511 batteries), it includes a battery cartridge that
>>> holds 6 AAs. The cartridge fits nicely into the grip...
>> Watch out on some earlier BG-E2. It somehow does not like using
>> rechargable NiMH at all.
>> 2 -5 shots .. then kaput :D
>
> Actually, my grip for the 5D is the BG-E4...so I don't know about the E2.
Some early BG-E2's were recalled for a defect. They wouldn't work
properly with the BP-511 either. I had one, and Canon fixed it.
SMS
> It really sounds to me that people who insist on AA cell cameras are
> shooting themselves in the foot. Big time.
They are, and they do so because they are unable to look at the big
picture, and evaluate _all_ the trade-offs. Instead they get carried
away with what might happen if they are backpacking in the wilderness
but suddenly walk out to a road that happens to have a small store that
sells AA batteries, but not Li-Ion batteries.
Actually, what I would worry about is buying a niche market camera with
a proprietary Li-Ion battery, because replacements might not be
available for more than five years or so, and you can't stockpile. This
isn't an issue with popular Canon or Nikon cameras, but it might be a
problem with some of the other digital SLRs.
SMS
> "ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote:
>
>> And you're also mistaken when you generalize, implying that by using
>> a camera that uses AA batteries one would have to schlepp around a
>> gross number of AA cells.
>
> You have to carry around exactly four times as many AA cells as proprietary
> batteries.
Not true. Since the AA cells are less dense, you would need more to
achieve the same number of shots.
Practically speaking, for a D-SLR it's six times as many, as you need
one set or pack to use, one set or pack to charge. For smaller point and
shoots it may only be 2x. Actually, for a small point and shoot, two
Sanyo eneloop batteries would be okay, though they'd have less capacity
than a Li-Ion pack, the number of shots is sufficiently high that it
makes no difference.
SMS
> If you have a DSLR you probably already have at least a couple of lenses to
> carry around, so an extra proprietary battery or two and a charger is no big
> deal.
Even with a P&S, you're probably going to use rechargeable NiMH AA
cells, so you'll have the charger to carry. No one wants to be dependent
on always running out to buy AA alkaline cells, regardless of how easily
available they are. You pay a lot for these batteries at a 7-11, it's
not like buying a pack of 36 at Costco.
> With a tiny bit of planning you can have plenty of battery capacity for
> the shots you expect to take on your trip without having to worry about how
> close the nearest convenience store is.
The sole advantage to the AA cells is if you're out in the middle of
nowhere, without a vehicle, your batteries are exhausted and you come
across a convenience store where they sell AA batteries. Of course with
Li-Ion packs you're less likely to be put in this situation in the first
place.
SMS
> You said "That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
> second thought", you didn't mention picture quality - thus the comment. The
> range of quality from high end lenses on DSLR's through P&S digitals to cell
> phones is large and what you use depends on a balance between results and
> convenience. I have an Optio WP I carry with me fly fishing, but I don't use it
> much for landscapes. I think you're too sensitive to being insulted if you
> thought that's what I was trying to do.
Actually, the picture quality argument tends to hold even down to
non-SLRs. Nearly all the high end point and shoot cameras also use
Li-Ion batteries, if you confine yourself to AA cells you are severely
limiting your choices in terms of high end point and shoots, and you
also almost totally eliminate any pocket size cameras.
Look at two somewhat similar 7 megapixel cameras from Canon, the G6 and
the A620. The two are similar, but the G6 has several advantages besides
the included Li-Ion battery pack. These advantages include a better
lens, a remote control, a hot shoe for an external flash attachment,
Compact Flash memory instead of SD memory, RAW option, and better
software. Of course the G6 also costs nearly $200 more than the A620,
but it's a much better, and more versatile camera, for those that are
more serious about photography.
Neil Ellwood
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:19:47 +0100, Neil Ellwood wrote:
>
>>> How does that tell us if the supplier is known to be reputable or not?
>
> That's exactly what I'm doing.
>
> Amanda W.
Either your news reader is broken or you are misusing it - that quote was
not written by me.
SMS
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:46:33 GMT
> Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:07:55 -0700, SMS wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest that you read http://batterydata.com
>>> Li-Ion rechargeable batteries have the following advantages
>>> 1. Lower self-discharge
>>> 2. Higher number of cycles
>>> 3. Higher energy density
>>> 4. Better low-temperature performance
>>> 5. Comparable cost
>>> 6. Universal Li-Ion chargers
>>> 7. Protection circuitry integral to the battery
>>> 8. Accurate charge level indicator
>>> 9. Lower maintenance.
>>> 10. Higher-end cameras use Li-Ion batteries.
>> This is seemingly good information ... until you look analytically.
>
> You're catching on. Steve posts this dubious list and the link to
> his pro-Li-ion web site periodically. I don't have any evidence
> that he's being actively dishonest. He's just stuck on this mission
> of converting the world to the "one true battery".
No, I want people to honestly look at all the data when making a choice.
The conspiracy theorists disgust me, and the "middle of nowhere"
argument is weak at best.
> If you point out that some of his ten advantages aren't really
> advantages in the real world (1, 2, 3, 6, 9), some are actually
> disadvantages (7), and some are plainly irrelevant (10), he won't
> change his list.
No one has ever come up with any valid reasons that any of the items on
the list are not "real-word" advantages. Are you really trying to claim
that lower self-discharge, more charge/discharge cycles, smaller
packages, the ability to use a single charger for all your devices, and
lower maintenance are not real-world advantages? Tell us you're joking!
> Paul Allen (who owns a camera with a proprietary Li-ion battery)
Good decision.
J.F. Cornwall
I've been using my Powershot A80 for years now with 2 sets of 4
rechargeable AAs, and two spare sets of alkaline AAs in case I need 'em.
Everything fits nicely in the case, and the only time I have ever run
out juice was one time when I stupidly left the spares in my hotel room.
Using AAs in a new camera isn't quite a necessity for me, but darn
close... And as far as I can tell, my feet have no holes in 'em.
Jim
browntimdc
$.d...@40tude.net:
> - Where is this universal Li-Ion charger you bespeak of?
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/mh-c777plus.htm
> - Why doesn't our math support your higher-density argument?
Can't argue with that. Li-ion have about the same energy per unit volume as
NiMH but much higher energy per unit weight.
> - How can a sealed pack where one dead cell kills all give you lower
> maintenance?
The built in protective circuitry keeps the cells balanced. You won't get
one cell dead or even below 2.5V
Tim
--
"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
and the second strongest is to resist it."
Kenneth Graham
Albert Nurick
> So, I'm ditching the Nikon D50 for a digital SLR that takes AA
> batteries.
Interesting priorities. Modern high-end portable electronic equipment
almost always uses lithium-ion batteries; you're dooming yourself to
the mediocre because you don't want to deal with proprietary batteries.
Have you looked at the iGo universal adapter system?
If they support your devices, it might be a good solution.
--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
alb...@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > You're catching on. Steve posts this dubious list and the link to
> > his pro-Li-ion web site periodically. I don't have any evidence
> > that he's being actively dishonest. He's just stuck on this mission
> > of converting the world to the "one true battery".
>
> No, I want people to honestly look at all the data when making a choice.
something you have yet to do.
> The conspiracy theorists disgust me, and the "middle of nowhere"
> argument is weak at best.
and your biased claims are also disgusting.
> > If you point out that some of his ten advantages aren't really
> > advantages in the real world (1, 2, 3, 6, 9), some are actually
> > disadvantages (7), and some are plainly irrelevant (10), he won't
> > change his list.
>
> No one has ever come up with any valid reasons that any of the items on
> the list are not "real-word" advantages.
sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't. people's needs and
circumstances vary.
> Are you really trying to claim
> that lower self-discharge, more charge/discharge cycles, smaller
> packages, the ability to use a single charger for all your devices, and
> lower maintenance are not real-world advantages? Tell us you're joking!
lower self discharge is not a big deal unless the batteries sit unused,
and in that case they can easily be charged the night before using
them. if they sit unused often, then the person isn't a heavy shooter
and lower cost batteries might be a better choice anyway. even lithium
aa batteries, known for long shelf life, might be the best choice.
more charge/discharge cycles is not a guarantee, especially since
li-ion batteries degrade with or without use. further, aa nimh are
dirt cheap and one should also look at number of charge cycles per
dollar.
the ability to use a single charger is totally false. every li-ion
device i have uses a different charger. my cellphone, ipod, laptop and
camera all require seperate chargers, and i *still* need to take the aa
nimh charger for the external flash and gps. there is no way to
combine any of these into one charger. also, if i were to get another
camera (say a small p&s in addition to the dslr), i might end up with
yet another li-ion battery, with yet another charger.
how about some of the drawbacks of li-ion?
- cost more (4 nimh aa are approx $5; even the cheapest li-ion is more).
- degrade just sitting on the shelf, with approximately 2-3 year life.
- li-ion batteries are sometimes recalled, and have been known to
explode. see the latest instance:
<http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/28/another_dell_laptop_burns/>
and dell has 'dozens' of incidents on file:
<http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/21/overheating_laptops/>
also, the aftermarket batteries aren't created equal. here's a
comparison:
Brad Sims
In Dread Ink, the Grave hand of ASAAR Did Inscribe:
> You're apparently not above lapsing into trollery or behaving as a
> naughty little boy. Despite using 4 AA batteries which go weeks to
> months without needing to be changed (when alkalines are used, not
> NiMH), the camera remains much smaller and lighter than any of your
> DSLRs. That makes it easy to carry all day long without giving it a
> second thought, something not possible with your much grosser DSLRs.
> Perhaps you should converse with Rita. You both have a penchant for
> hyperbole, among other things. :)
Indeed, my canon S2 gets 500+ shots per recharge out of my
Energizer ten-minute recharge AA's. I carry a set of lithium
AA's in the camera bag as a spare...
Ooooh a 4x3" one ounce burden, my back is killing me <g>.
The camera itself weighs 14 oz, and has a 36-432mm equiv. (12x),
F2.7-3.5 lens. Not bad for $400USD.
--
"From my cold dead hands, my ass. I'll be taking their issue weapons
from their cold dead hands. I fight to win.
-- KBarrett