Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Rechargable Li-Ion CR-V3 vs 2x NiMH AA

Reply
Thread Tools

Rechargable Li-Ion CR-V3 vs 2x NiMH AA

 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
SMS wrote:
> Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
>
>> I have said before, junk your NiMh and use either Lithium AA
>> or CR-V3.
>> Even Alkalines give better refresh rates between shots taken.
>> Furthermore, you will always mix up your batterie

>
> Of course the best option is to not have this problem in the first
> place. There are plenty of cameras that come with Li-Ion batteries to
> begin with, where you don't need the R-CRV3 kluge. Ironically, the
> R-CRV3 batteries are much more expensive than high-quality aftermarket
> Li-Ion battery packs, at least for the more popular cameras.
>
> The problem is that the camera makers love being able to cheap out by
> not providing Li-Ion rechargeables on the low end cameras, and a lot of
> consumers don't understand the trade-offs, and why it's better to pay a
> little more up front.
>
> The R-CRV3 is a good workaround, as long as the camera needs only one. I
> know that the Sigma D-SLR needs two R-CRV3 batteries, which of course
> means you need two chargers if you want to charge a set of batteries
> simultaneously.
>
> You can see the details on the differences between batteries over at
> http://batterydata.com, a site I put together to counter all the
> misinformation about batteries.
>
> The flash recycle time should not be slower with NiMH than with Li-Ion,
> as both have very low internal resistance. In fact, it's the alkalines
> that are more likely to have slow flash recycle time.


My main concern with Lithium-ion batteries is that they leave the user
with no recourse should they unexpectedly become discharged. You either
keep a spare (expensive), or run the risk of having an expensive dead
weight.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:12:21 -0800, SMS broken record wrote:

[he's baaaack]

> I did a cost analysis of the NiMH versus Li-Ion, being quite
> conservative, and there is essentially no cost difference on the popular
> Canon and Nikon cameras. For heavy use, where the Li-Ion is used to the
> maximum number of charge/discharge cycles prior to it going bad due to
> time, the Li-Ion is actually cheaper. In any case, the difference in
> cost is small, and even when Li-Ion is a little more, the tremendous
> advantages in terms of performance, capacity, weight, temperature, and
> self-discharge make the choice a no-brainer.


Nonsense. Your analysis has to have been faulty. The no-brainer
is . . . you !!!

If you care to provide a detailed example of your analysis, I'll
happily show you what you failed to consider.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ilya Zakharevich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
SMS
<(E-Mail Removed)>], who wrote in article <454f74b5$0$88696$(E-Mail Removed)>:
> 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.
> 11. No problems with battery doors that are part of the charging circuit
> (battery doors are the most often replaced part of digital cameras).


There are major disadvantages too (Do not know how to move them to the
list below):

-1) Quality quickly deteriorates if stored with full charge. See
WikiPedia; they claim that storing above 40% charge is not
"beneficial" to the battery.

Of course, such things depends on the brand, but if you believe
WikiPedia, manufactures are still managing to be secretive about this
"feature"; thus there is no reliable information from the
manufacturers...

> NiMH rechargeable batteries have the following advantages over Li-Ion
> rechargeable batteries:
>
> 1. Faster charging with high rate chargers

....

Ilya
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:

> I have said before, junk your NiMh and use either Lithium AA
> or CR-V3.
> Even Alkalines give better refresh rates between shots taken.
> Furthermore, you will always mix up your batterie


Of course the best option is to not have this problem in the first
place. There are plenty of cameras that come with Li-Ion batteries to
begin with, where you don't need the R-CRV3 kluge. Ironically, the
R-CRV3 batteries are much more expensive than high-quality aftermarket
Li-Ion battery packs, at least for the more popular cameras.

The problem is that the camera makers love being able to cheap out by
not providing Li-Ion rechargeables on the low end cameras, and a lot of
consumers don't understand the trade-offs, and why it's better to pay a
little more up front.

The R-CRV3 is a good workaround, as long as the camera needs only one. I
know that the Sigma D-SLR needs two R-CRV3 batteries, which of course
means you need two chargers if you want to charge a set of batteries
simultaneously.

You can see the details on the differences between batteries over at
http://batterydata.com, a site I put together to counter all the
misinformation about batteries.

The flash recycle time should not be slower with NiMH than with Li-Ion,
as both have very low internal resistance. In fact, it's the alkalines
that are more likely to have slow flash recycle time.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
Phil Wheeler wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>> Dumping batteries, such as lithium and/or NIMH into one's pockets is a
>> VERY BAD IDEA. They can warm up rather catastrophically should they
>> become in contact with keys, etc. and complete a circuit. The results
>> could be rather painful.
>> I KNOW!

>
> Next time invest in some ziplock-style sandwich bags.


Actually the Li-Ion packs have over-current and over-temp protection
built in, so the results won't be catastrophic if shorted out, but you
still don't want to do this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> With my 2700 mAh batteries, I never ran out in one day's shooting. It
>> charges quickly (2 hours max). And it is simply more cost effective than
>> Li batteries of the same capacity.
>>
>> It pays to buy good NiMH batteries.

>
> that may(or may not) be so;however, you must consider all other
> factors.
> A) It is inconvenient to take out and put back into the camera 2
> batteries
> matching + -.
> B) you will always mix up NiMh brands, MAh, etc.
> marking them doesnt help in dark light.
> buying a 10 pack of Alkalines or Lithiums is more convenient as you
> empty
> all of them into your pocket, use them, and throw them away, freeing
> up space.
> Shooting today's NYC marathon, sealed the deal for me.
> I am going either CR-V3 or Lithium.


Yes, it's important to look at the big picture when selecting a product,
and evaluate the differences in battery technology.

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.
11. No problems with battery doors that are part of the charging circuit
(battery doors are the most often replaced part of digital cameras).

NiMH rechargeable batteries have the following advantages over Li-Ion
rechargeable batteries:

1. Faster charging with high rate chargers
2. Ability to use disposable AA batteries if NiMH AA batteries are
discharged and no charger is available
3. Longer shelf life
4. Long-term availability of less popular Li-Ion battery packs could
render a device useless, or require that the existing battery pack be
sent out for rebuilding
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
SMS wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> My main concern with Lithium-ion batteries is that they leave the user
>> with no recourse should they unexpectedly become discharged. You
>> either keep a spare (expensive), or run the risk of having an
>> expensive dead weight.

>
> Except they really aren't expensive in most cases. The popular cameras
> have inexpensive, high-quality, after-market Li-Ion batteries available.
> For SLRs, you do have the AA option with the vertical grip.
>
> You'd have spares with alkalines, or NiMH as well.
>
> I did a cost analysis of the NiMH versus Li-Ion, being quite
> conservative, and there is essentially no cost difference on the popular
> Canon and Nikon cameras. For heavy use, where the Li-Ion is used to the
> maximum number of charge/discharge cycles prior to it going bad due to
> time, the Li-Ion is actually cheaper. In any case, the difference in
> cost is small, and even when Li-Ion is a little more, the tremendous
> advantages in terms of performance, capacity, weight, temperature, and
> self-discharge make the choice a no-brainer.
>
> See http://batterydata.com/ and scroll down to "$
>
> High Capacity Li-Ion Battery Packs are comparable in cost to High
> Capacity NiMH batteries."


I hadn't looked at prices for lithium ion batteries and chargers for a
while, so I went and checked (online), and found that a common batter
type KLIC 1700 costs about $20, and a charger about $35. I am sure you
can pay more, or less, for them, but that seemed an average price. Now,
one can buy 4 NIMH batteries with a charger for about $20. The NIMH
batteries will last (in my experience) 3 to 5 years, while a lithium ion
battery is good for about 3 years. I fail to see how you consider them
to be cheaper. Superior, in many ways, to be sure, but cheaper? I
don't see that.
For the average user, a couple of sets of NIMH batteries, and charger,
along with a backup disposable set (preferably lithium), will do the
job as well, and much cheaper.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
Ron Hunter wrote:

> I hadn't looked at prices for lithium ion batteries and chargers for a
> while, so I went and checked (online), and found that a common batter
> type KLIC 1700 costs about $20, and a charger about $35. I am sure you
> can pay more, or less, for them, but that seemed an average price. Now,
> one can buy 4 NIMH batteries with a charger for about $20. The NIMH
> batteries will last (in my experience) 3 to 5 years, while a lithium ion
> battery is good for about 3 years. I fail to see how you consider them
> to be cheaper. Superior, in many ways, to be sure, but cheaper? I
> don't see that.


First off, when the camera comes with a battery and charger, that's a
$20 savings right off the bat.

I have three Canon devices that use the BP511 battery, which are $12
each (actually you can get them for less).

You can't look just at the raw cost. You have to look at the number of
charge cycles, the number of batteries you actually need to have around,
etc. With AA batteries, you always want two extra sets, because the
capacity is lower, while with Li-Ion, a single spare is sufficient for
most users.

If you're not a heavy user, the fact that the NiMH batteries have a
longer shelf life makes them slightly less expensive over time. But
we're talking maybe $12 a year versus $8 a year, it's all lost in the
noise. For less common Li-Ion batteries the cost is higher, but the
difference is still not enough to worry about when you consider all the
other advantages of Li-Ion.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2006
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:46:30 -0800, SMS distorted:

> You can't look just at the raw cost. You have to look at the number of
> charge cycles, the number of batteries you actually need to have around,
> etc. With AA batteries, you always want two extra sets, because the
> capacity is lower, while with Li-Ion, a single spare is sufficient for
> most users.


Why do you persist in this calculated, studied stupidity? Your
first two sentences are fine, but then your integrity is chucked out
the window with the third, and quite deceptive concluding sentence.
When comparing battery types it's dishonest to base it on the best
case of Li-Ion vs. the worst case for AA batteries. When I used my
old Powershots, I did have to bring along two extra proprietary
battery packs because all three would sometimes be needed to last an
entire day. And I can assure you that while the second or third
battery packs were being used, the charger was also being used.
When I got my Fuji two years ago, all of that ended, and I usually
don't carry *any* extra battery sets, since I can get more than 800
shots from a set of alkaline AA batteries and a lot more from NiMH
AAs. Several other camera manufacturers produce cameras that do as
well or are able to take even more shots on a single set of AAs.

I'm sure that you know this, but can only conclude that you prefer
deceptively pretending that such good performance with AA batteries
doesn't exist, even though it has been frequently reported here for
nearly two years. Name some other P&S cameras using Li-Ion
batteries that can manage to take about 1600 shots per charge as
some of Canon's P&S cameras can. If there are any (and I don't see
why there couldn't be a few) your claim that more sets of AA
batteries are needed than Li-Ion batteries would still be false.


> If you're not a heavy user, the fact that the NiMH batteries have a
> longer shelf life makes them slightly less expensive over time. But
> we're talking maybe $12 a year versus $8 a year, it's all lost in the
> noise. For less common Li-Ion batteries the cost is higher, but the
> difference is still not enough to worry about when you consider all the
> other advantages of Li-Ion.


More deception. I've shown before in great detail why it is that
Li-Ion in most cases is far more expensive per year than Li-Ion.
Depending on the camera, this can be as little as $1 or $2 per year
for NiMH batteries over time, and this includes an extra set of
batteries and paying the typically high over-the-counter prices in
stores, and *not*, as some people do, scouring eBay or the internet
for the cheapest (often low quality) Li-Ion battery prices.

 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2006
Ron Hunter wrote:

> My main concern with Lithium-ion batteries is that they leave the user
> with no recourse should they unexpectedly become discharged. You either
> keep a spare (expensive), or run the risk of having an expensive dead
> weight.


Except they really aren't expensive in most cases. The popular cameras
have inexpensive, high-quality, after-market Li-Ion batteries available.
For SLRs, you do have the AA option with the vertical grip.

You'd have spares with alkalines, or NiMH as well.

I did a cost analysis of the NiMH versus Li-Ion, being quite
conservative, and there is essentially no cost difference on the popular
Canon and Nikon cameras. For heavy use, where the Li-Ion is used to the
maximum number of charge/discharge cycles prior to it going bad due to
time, the Li-Ion is actually cheaper. In any case, the difference in
cost is small, and even when Li-Ion is a little more, the tremendous
advantages in terms of performance, capacity, weight, temperature, and
self-discharge make the choice a no-brainer.

See http://batterydata.com/ and scroll down to "$

High Capacity Li-Ion Battery Packs are comparable in cost to High
Capacity NiMH batteries."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
battery question - nimh vs hybrid nimh spoon2001 Digital Photography 10 06-30-2007 11:50 PM
Rechargable battery question Annette Kurten Computer Support 10 05-09-2005 02:50 AM
Rechargable Lithium vs Rechargable NiMH batteries - just curious zxcvar Digital Photography 25 12-02-2004 02:14 AM
help! rechargable batteries andy Digital Photography 6 01-10-2004 06:31 PM
Rechargable batteries for digital flash? Wessy1 Digital Photography 16 01-04-2004 10:29 PM



Advertisments