On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:11:12 -0800, SMS wrote:
>> That's totally untrue, simultaneously amusing and sad. That's the
>> point I've repeatedly made, including showing types of usage that
>> would make Li-Ion the better choice. You are the one that
>> repeatedly ignores people's different usages and requirements.
>
> In fact, if you look at my digital camera web sites, you'll see that
> about 1/3 of the recommended cameras use AA batteries. Battery type
> should not be the primary criteria used in the selection of a camera.
> Li-Ion is the only choice on D-SLRs and on very small cameras, because
> it is impractical to use AA cells on either type. But for the lower cost
> point and shoot cameras, AA batteries are a necessary compromise to keep
> the cost down. See "http://digitalcamerashortlist.com".
I don't dwell on what you have on your web sites. Almost all of
my critical comments have been due to what you've said here, in this
newsgroup. But cost is not the only advantage to using AA
batteries. Can you think of others? I can.
>> One example which you've been guilty of on more than one occasion
> > (including just the other day) is saying in effect that the only
> > advantage to having a camera that uses AA batteries is that they can
> > be bought almost everywhere.
>
> In fact, "http://batterydata.com" points out five advantages of AA
> batteries, though in reality, the one that is most touted by most people
> is the "boondocks" reason.
Then try to remember them when you advise people *here*. It's
here that you overwhelmingly support Li-Ion and fail to credit other
battery types when their use can be more advantageous than Li-Ion.
Reasons that other people give should not stop you from being aware
of and pointing out other advantages than universal availability.
>> outrageously misleading data in an attempt to prove that Li-Ion is
>> much more cost effective than other battery types. I've shown the
>> type of usage where this can be true, but what you always leave out
>> is that for the way most people use digital cameras, Li-Ion
>> batteries can be the most expensive choice.
>
> On the contrary, I've explicitly pointed out that light users will
> likely not see the cost benefit of Li-Ion, "For very light users, NiMH
> batteries are cheaper by virtue of the fact that their lifespan is
> longer, typically five years for NiMH, versus three years for Li-Ion.
> However the absolute cost difference is still very small, we're talking
> $12 every three years versus $10 every five years."
You're still being misleading by choosing "best case" values.
First, it's better to choose neither the highest nor the lowest
prices. So you don't have to include OEM list prices which might
range from $40 to $60 per battery, but neither should you choose the
rock bottom $10. Many reputable batteries can be bought from
sources such as B&H and J&R and Adorama for about $20, so that's a
better, more representative price to use. Second, most people have
at least one backup battery (and both you and I probably agree that
at least one spare battery should be purchased), so that would be at
least two batteries every three years, for $40. The charger itself
would add to the cost, and an inexpensive non-OEM charger is
probably about $20. It's unlikely that it would be used more than 6
years (future cameras would probably use different batteries), so
adding 1/2 the price brings the cost up to $50 every three years.
Most people could afford this, but most people (not all) that take
only a couple of thousand shots per year, with an apprpriate camera
could buy $8 or $10 worth of alkalines today and have a good number
of them remaining unused three years from now. I bought a "brick"
of 48 Maxell alkaline AAs about 5 years ago from Sears for $10 (1/2
their regular price at the time) and I'm still using some of them.
Pathmark regularly rotates sale prices among 3 different brands of
alkalines, Rayovac's usually being the most inexpensive, only
slightly higher per cell than the Sears price mentioned above. At
these prices $2.00 worth of alkalines would last more than a year
for *my* camera, a Fuji, and for my usage. So for *me* and many
owners of Canon's recent models, the operating cost over three years
might be $6.00 or less, far lower than the $50 that most users of
Li-Ion batteries pay. With heavy use of the flash, the gap would
narrow. And even if Li-Ion has a lower self-discharge rate than
NiMH batteries, they both have to be charged periodically, which
adds to the inconvenience. For these efficient cameras, I figure
that the breakeven point where rechargeable batteries start to
become more cost effective might be about 10,000 shots per year,
well above what most people take. For older cameras that get far
fewer shots per set of alkalines or per charge, the breakeven point
will be much lower. For some really power hungry cameras,
rechargeable batteries might make good sense for people that only
take one or two thousand shots per year. You've seen this cost
analysis before and ignored it, but you're still make the same
"we're talking $12 every three years versus $10 every five years."
claim even though yours totally ignores the use of alkaline
batteries with many of today's efficient cameras that aren't used to
take very large numbers of pictures yearly. Just another example of
how *you* ignore all possibilities and cherry pick usage that
supports what you want to show.
> In fact, "http://batterydata.com" points out five advantages of AA
> batteries, though in reality, the one that is most touted by most people
> is the "boondocks" reason. I believe that most of these people have been
> conditioned by having their NiMH batteries go flat, and having had to
> buy AA cells to get by. Then they extrapolate that into "gee it's a good
> thing I wasn't using a Li-Ion battery because I'd never have been able
> to get by with some alkalines." They fail to take into account the fact
> that had they been using Li-Ion, they would have been highly unlikely to
> ever have needed emergency replacement batteries.
A small number might believe that Li-Ion batteries lose power to
self discharge as quickly as NiMH, but most probably don't. What
leads you to believe that most people do? Do you have real evidence
or is it just a guess that supports what you want to believe? If
most of them are familiar with anything, it might well be the
opposite, that Li-Ion batteries go longer between charges, since
most people have had the advantage of experience using portable and
cell phones, which have been around quite a bit longer than digital
cameras, and where Li-Ion batteries have tended to displace NiMH
(and especially NiCad) batteries. What *you* fail to take into
account is that outside of DSLRs and subcompact cameras, for many if
not most people, rechargeable batteries are not needed at all. It
would be good to make people aware of this, while at the same time
making sure to alert them to the fact that if they will be making
very heavy use of their cameras then it might well be beneficial to
use NiMH or Li-Ion batteries.
Similar Threads
