battery life

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bacchus, Jul 14, 2005.

  1. Bacchus

    Bacchus Guest

    I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
    Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
    10 photos and about 1/2 hour.

    My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
    batteries you would buy in the store?

    thanks
     
    Bacchus, Jul 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bacchus

    Guest

    , Jul 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bacchus

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:23:59 -0400, Bacchus wrote:

    > I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
    > Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
    > 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
    >
    > My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
    > batteries you would buy in the store?


    In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
    AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines. In older power
    hungry cameras, the NiMH cells naturally don't last as long, but the
    alkalines die *far* sooner, so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
    last 5 or 10 times as long. Battery life is usually included in the
    camera reviews at dpreview.com, and downloadable manuals often
    include battery life tables. For my camera, the manual states that
    alkaline AAs should last for 200 shots and NiMH about 400 when
    tested according to their procedure. I generally use NiMH but
    haven't tested them, but I did test a set of alkaline AAs several
    months ago, and I did get more than 200 shots out of them.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 14, 2005
    #3
  4. Bacchus

    Mark² Guest

    "Bacchus" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
    > Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for
    > about
    > 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
    >
    > My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
    > batteries you would buy in the store?


    Camera companies really make their cameras look BAD by including standard
    alkalines with their cameras, since they are teh WORST choice for use with
    digital cameras.
    NiMh batteries last FAR longer than Duracells, Energizers, or any other
    alkaline batteries.
    This is because although NiMh is rated at lower voltage, they are better at
    delivering heavy current to high-energy-draw devices like flash units and
    digital cameras. Alkalines are great for low-draw devices like smoke
    alarms...flashlights...and other devices--especially those which will sit
    unused on a shelf for extended periods. Since NiMh batteries slowly lose
    their charge when left idle, they are not a good choice for flashlights, and
    definitely not smoke alarms, clocks, etc.

    If you get a set of 2300mA batteries, and get them charged...you will be
    AMAZED at the improvement in your camera.
    Don't be afraid of lower rated ones, either, like those rated from
    1800-2100mA. These will still FAR outperform any alkaline batteries.

    -Mark
     
    Mark², Jul 14, 2005
    #4
  5. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:23:59 -0400, Bacchus wrote:
    >
    >> I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I
    >> have a Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they
    >> lasted for about 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
    >>
    >> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
    >> batteries you would buy in the store?

    >
    > In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
    > AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines.


    In my limited experience the NiMH lasted 5 - 50 times longer. It
    depends on the camera.


    > In older power
    > hungry cameras, the NiMH cells naturally don't last as long, but the
    > alkalines die *far* sooner, so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
    > last 5 or 10 times as long. Battery life is usually included in the
    > camera reviews at dpreview.com, and downloadable manuals often
    > include battery life tables. For my camera, the manual states that
    > alkaline AAs should last for 200 shots and NiMH about 400 when
    > tested according to their procedure. I generally use NiMH but
    > haven't tested them, but I did test a set of alkaline AAs several
    > months ago, and I did get more than 200 shots out of them.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jul 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Bacchus

    Tony Hwang Guest

    Bacchus wrote:

    > I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
    > Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for about
    > 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
    >
    > My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
    > batteries you would buy in the store?
    >
    > thanks
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Hi,
    I think something wrong with your camera. I never saw digital camera
    eating up batteries that fast.
    Tony
     
    Tony Hwang, Jul 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Bacchus

    frederick Guest

    Tony Hwang wrote:

    > Bacchus wrote:
    >
    >> I am seeing that alot of folk here like re-chargable batteries. I have a
    >> Canon A310, I just bought. I used Duracell in it and they lasted for
    >> about
    >> 10 photos and about 1/2 hour.
    >>
    >> My question is how long do rechargables last compared to regular AA
    >> batteries you would buy in the store?
    >>
    >> thanks
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Hi,
    > I think something wrong with your camera. I never saw digital camera
    > eating up batteries that fast.
    > Tony

    I have. My Casio QVR-41 chewed through a pair of AA alkaline batteries
    in about a dozen shots - 20 if you were lucky. A pair of 2300 mAh NiMH
    last about 100 shots between charges.
     
    frederick, Jul 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Bacchus

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:32:43 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

    >> In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
    >> AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines.

    >
    > In my limited experience the NiMH lasted 5 - 50 times longer. It
    > depends on the camera.


    >> so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
    >> last 5 or 10 times as long.


    Evidently your experience was limited to older cameras that were
    *real* battery hogs. Unless I'm missing something, we're saying
    pretty much the same thing. That said, I'd like to know what camera
    got 50 times longer life from NiMH AAs than from alkalines. I've
    never heard of any approaching differences of that magnitude.
    Additionally, the camera(s) most likely to be the one(s) you're
    referring to would probably have been made 5 or more years ago, when
    alkalines were substantially the same as today's, but NiMH
    capacities were significantly less, 1,300mah and 1,100mah not being
    uncommon.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Bacchus

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:15:51 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > Camera companies really make their cameras look BAD by including standard
    > alkalines with their cameras, since they are teh WORST choice for use with
    > digital cameras.
    > NiMh batteries last FAR longer than Duracells, Energizers, or any other
    > alkaline batteries.


    That's not as true today as it once was. The Fuji camera I bought
    late last year does indeed get longer life from NiMH batteries
    (twice as much), but that still amounts to over 200 shots from a set
    of alkalines. And that includes substantial use of the flash (but
    anti-redeye preflashes disabled), much zooming of the lens, the EVF
    or LCD always on (no optical viewfinder), the use of a focus-assist
    lamp and a fair amount of LCD chimping. I initially thought as you
    did, and didn't consider using the alkalines included with the
    camera until a thread in this ng several months ago spurred me into
    testing them. I realize that some new cameras don't do as well, but
    I doubt that any of them have the horrifically short life with
    alkalines that were business as usual several years ago. And mine
    is far from the only recent camera that performs well with
    alkalines.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 14, 2005
    #9
  10. Bacchus

    Mark² Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:15:51 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> Camera companies really make their cameras look BAD by including standard
    >> alkalines with their cameras, since they are teh WORST choice for use
    >> with
    >> digital cameras.
    >> NiMh batteries last FAR longer than Duracells, Energizers, or any other
    >> alkaline batteries.

    >
    > That's not as true today as it once was. The Fuji camera I bought
    > late last year does indeed get longer life from NiMH batteries
    > (twice as much), but that still amounts to over 200 shots from a set
    > of alkalines. And that includes substantial use of the flash (but
    > anti-redeye preflashes disabled), much zooming of the lens, the EVF
    > or LCD always on (no optical viewfinder), the use of a focus-assist
    > lamp and a fair amount of LCD chimping. I initially thought as you
    > did, and didn't consider using the alkalines included with the
    > camera until a thread in this ng several months ago spurred me into
    > testing them. I realize that some new cameras don't do as well, but
    > I doubt that any of them have the horrifically short life with
    > alkalines that were business as usual several years ago. And mine
    > is far from the only recent camera that performs well with
    > alkalines.


    Nobody is suggesting that Alkalines don't work.
    They do.
    But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...
    AND...
    You don't throw them away when they run down.
    I see little use for Alkaline in digital photography aside from emergency
    back-up use.
    Other than that, it is silly to promote the use of alkalines for this
    application.
     
    Mark², Jul 14, 2005
    #10
  11. Bacchus

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:15 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > Nobody is suggesting that Alkalines don't work.
    > They do.
    > But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...


    Evidently we disagree on the use of "FAR" better life. Where NiMH
    once routinely provided 10 times longer life than alkalines, which I
    would agree represents "far better life", it's now down to no more
    than 2 times better. What I didn't mention in the last message was
    that after taking about 212 pictures (with heavy use of flash,
    etc.), the same set of alkalines were left in the camera and
    pictures continued to be taken without the use of the flash until
    the batteries couldn't provide power to take any more pictures.
    Over the next couple of days I was able to take more than 400
    additional pictures, for a total of over 600 from one set of
    alkalines. I noted that the NiMH was supposed to have been able to
    take up to 400 pictures. Based on MY typical usage, by the time I'd
    take 600 pictures (and many are outdoors where flash isn't normally
    used, so I might get much more than 600 shots from a single set of
    alkaline batteries) at least two, maybe three months would have
    passed. Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
    lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
    at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
    have taken their toll.

    You like to speak in absolutes, but it is NOT true that, as you
    said, "But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...". That used to
    be true. It still is in many cases, especially with older camera
    designs. But it no longer always is the case. And as I showed, it
    also depends on how the camera is used. I can take many hundreds of
    pictures in a single day with a single set of alkalines and NiMH can
    easily surpass that, but it won't be able to do "FAR better", at
    least with my definition of FAR. And I rarely take many hundreds of
    pictures in a single day. But if I take a dozen pictures per day,
    every day, one set of alkalines will last FAR longer than NiMH.


    > AND...
    > You don't throw them away when they run down.
    > I see little use for Alkaline in digital photography aside from emergency
    > back-up use.


    Alkalines don't represent the environmental hazard that NiCads do.
    But if you prefer using NiMH, and are consistent in only owning high
    mileage cars (no SUVs, please), avoid the use of plastic shopping
    bags by toting your own canvas or nylon bags when you go shopping,
    and are a fastidious recycler, then good for you. But I'd guess
    that many people that frown on the use of alkaline batteries don't
    fit that profile.


    > Other than that, it is silly to promote the use of alkalines for this
    > application.


    Absolute statements such as this are FAR sillier. And nobody was
    promoting the use of alkaline batteries, just showing that they can
    sometimes be a practical alternative to the use of NiMH (and even
    Li-ion) rechargeable batteries. I still continue to use NiMH
    batteries in the camera even though they are much less convenient,
    since almost every time I use the camera I need to replace the
    batteries with a freshly charged set. It's not my only camera, and
    it's not uncommon for several weeks or more to pass between the time
    when I set it down and when I pick it up to take more pictures.

    You on the other hand are definitely promoting the wide use of NiMH
    batteries, even though for some people, with some cameras, and some
    usage patterns, NiMH would be a poorer choice, and would actually
    cost more money in the long run. I'll leave it to you to figure out
    how this might be possible, but if you say it can't ever be true,
    you'd be dead wrong. But there's nothing wrong with occasionally
    being wrong. It's everyone's right. Some people even appreciate
    reviews written by a particular reviewer who seems to specialize in
    getting things wrong. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Bacchus

    Mark² Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:28:15 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> Nobody is suggesting that Alkalines don't work.
    >> They do.
    >> But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...

    >
    > Evidently we disagree on the use of "FAR" better life. Where NiMH
    > once routinely provided 10 times longer life than alkalines, which I
    > would agree represents "far better life", it's now down to no more
    > than 2 times better.


    I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider DOUBLE the
    life, and...
    ....you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
    :)
    Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around, but I
    suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life and
    comparatively zero cost.


    What I didn't mention in the last message was
    > that after taking about 212 pictures (with heavy use of flash,
    > etc.), the same set of alkalines were left in the camera and
    > pictures continued to be taken without the use of the flash until
    > the batteries couldn't provide power to take any more pictures.
    > Over the next couple of days I was able to take more than 400
    > additional pictures, for a total of over 600 from one set of
    > alkalines. I noted that the NiMH was supposed to have been able to
    > take up to 400 pictures. Based on MY typical usage, by the time I'd
    > take 600 pictures (and many are outdoors where flash isn't normally
    > used, so I might get much more than 600 shots from a single set of
    > alkaline batteries) at least two, maybe three months would have
    > passed. Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
    > lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
    > at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
    > have taken their toll.


    Aaaah. So you're talking about leaving NiMh batteries sitting for months at
    a time?
    Well of course that is not ideal.
    NiMh batteries are at their best when they are used up and charged.
    Holding a long-term charge sitting on a shelf or in a camera for months is
    never going to be their strength.

    >
    > You like to speak in absolutes, but it is NOT true that, as you
    > said, "But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...".


    Assuming you're not letting your camera collect dust for months...yes, you
    will.
    :)

    Of course some devices will fair OK with alkalines, but some cameras will
    literally poop out before you know it, as Still... You're ready to dismiss
    twice the life as no big deal. That seems odd to me.

    That used to
    > be true. It still is in many cases, especially with older camera
    > designs. But it no longer always is the case.


    "Twice" or even 50% more life is "FAR" better, is it not?

    >And as I showed, it
    > also depends on how the camera is used. I can take many hundreds of
    > pictures in a single day with a single set of alkalines and NiMH can
    > easily surpass that, but it won't be able to do "FAR better", at
    > least with my definition of FAR.


    You're doing an awful lot of quibbling over my use of the word "far."

    >And I rarely take many hundreds of
    > pictures in a single day.


    But this isn't really about you or your personal shooting habits.
    It's simply a comparison of battery capacities.
    In a field where people rave over "twice teh megapixels"..."twice the ISO
    sensitivity"...twice the this and that" I think you're dismissing what most
    people consider a VERY large improvement in performance. -And frankly, I
    hope newbies reading along here take your post with a big fat grain of salt.
    You are steering them in a direction that is likely to lead them toward
    disappointment and needless expense.

    >But if I take a dozen pictures per day,
    > every day, one set of alkalines will last FAR longer than NiMH.


    That's assuming you refuse to switch between two sets of batteries every so
    often.
    If you are intent on using them only occasionally, or until they either die
    or are thrown away, then alkalines are STILL the expensive alternative.
    Ever hear of a trickle charger? Two sets of batteries...one in the
    camera...one kept in the charger always.
    --No more wasted alkaline money...no more trash.
    If you feel compelled to fill your trash with disposable batteries, then
    feel free.

    As I've said--For those who refuse to swap batteries occasionally, then
    alkalines will work for them.
    NiMh batteries sit in my flash sometimes for weeks with only occasional use,
    and I don't have to keep swapping them out as you seem to imply. Unless
    you're storing NiMh batteries for many weeks, they should retain plenty of
    charge to keep most devices rolling.
     
    Mark², Jul 14, 2005
    #12
  13. Bacchus

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:01:26 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider DOUBLE the
    > life, and...
    > ...you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
    > :)
    > Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around, but I
    > suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life and
    > comparatively zero cost.


    You're not THINKING. Are you here only to try to win arguments
    even when you're mistaken? If you want to view all photographers as
    having similar cameras and similar shooting styles, and they're all
    like you, then your arguments are valid. What I've said is that
    there are exceptions to your rules, and that your rules are becoming
    less and less true as cameras become more efficient in their use of
    battery power. You also seem to think that all numbers greater than
    1 are the same. I don't. When NiMH batteries lasted 10 times as
    long as alkalines, as I said, that was FAR more. Note the CAPS.
    It's used for special emphasis. Heap big. Lotsa and lotsa life
    more than alkalines. Don't you have any way to recognize that
    cameras have changed and are changing still? I showed that with my
    camera, the best that NiMH can do is double the battery life, and
    depending on how the camera is used, alkalines can actually last
    longer. So it is now more accurate to say that some cameras get FAR
    more life from NiMH, others get noticeably more, and others might
    get less. Based on YOUR experience, you seem to want to shout FAR
    MORE as the only answer.

    Not all people take thousands of pictures per year. Some in this
    newsgroup take more than that, but millions of people only take
    dozens per year. For them, with an efficient camera, alkaline or
    lithium primary batteries make far more sense, both for reasons of
    cost and convenience. I know a number of people that use their
    cameras only on special occasions, maybe once or twice each year,
    and probably average fewer than 50 pictures per year. At the price
    I pay for alkaline AAs, if I took that amount of pictures with my
    camera (not all of the cameras, just the most recent, a Fuji), a set
    of alkalines would cost me a bit less than one dollar, and might
    last 4 to 6 years. Lithium AAs would be more expensive, but might
    easily last 10 years. For that type of photographer not only would
    NiMH batteries cost more (with the charger), they'd also be less
    convenient to use, and with such light usage patterns probably would
    have to be discarded before the first set of alkalines would have
    pooped out. I have a small Canon Powershot that got similar 'light'
    usage. It came with a non-rechargeable lithium battery, so the
    first thing I did was buy Canon's kit that included a charger and a
    rechargeable proprietary battery (inside are 3 AAA sized NiMH cells)
    and a second battery. Total cost - about $125 extra. Today, 4 to 5
    years later, those batteries are effectively worthless. One has
    less than 10% of the capacity of a new battery and the other is a
    little better, perhaps 15%. So I replaced them with a couple of
    cheaper, non-Canon labeled batteries for about $40 total. With the
    use I give this camera, I probably should have bought a couple of
    primary lithium batteries for 1/2 the cost. If this small Canon
    camera used batteries as efficiently as the Fuji and also used
    standard batteries, it would have been a no-brainer. Pop in a
    couple of AA alkalines and replace them several years later.


    >> Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
    >> lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
    >> at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
    >> have taken their toll.

    >
    > Aaaah. So you're talking about leaving NiMh batteries sitting for months at
    > a time?
    > Well of course that is not ideal.
    > Based on MY typical usage, NiMH batteries wouldn't have
    > > lasted nearly as long. I probably would have had to recharge them
    > > at least a couple of times as their high self discharge rates would
    > > have taken their toll.

    >
    > Aaaah. So you're talking about leaving NiMh batteries sitting for months at
    > a time?
    > Well of course that is not ideal.
    > NiMh batteries are at their best when they are used up and charged.
    > Holding a long-term charge sitting on a shelf or in a camera for months is
    > never going to be their strength.


    So? You'd tell millions of people that the way they use their
    cameras should be changed, in order to keep NiMH batteries (which
    aren't needed) in good shape? Of course it's not ideal for NiMH
    batteries, which (if you'd think a bit instead of trying to cling to
    a one-size-fits-all posture) means that in some circumstances, NiMH
    batteries are not the ideal batteries to use.


    >> You like to speak in absolutes, but it is NOT true that, as you
    >> said, "But you will get FAR better life from NiMh...".

    >
    > Assuming you're not letting your camera collect dust for months...yes, you
    > will.
    > :)


    Of course, and I've agreed that NiMH batteries are usually the
    choice for cameras. You seem to be straining mightily to avoid
    having to admit that there may be some cases where NiMH batteries
    are a poorer choice than non-rechargeables. You've admitted by
    implication that cameras that collect dust for months might be
    examples of those. And there are millions of camera owners that DO
    let their cameras collect dust for months. Even so, if their
    cameras are old and get horrible life from alkalines, then they
    should use NiMH batteries. But if I'm aware that they have a camera
    of recent vintage that can take between 100 and 200 pictures with a
    single set of alkalines, I'd be foolish to try to persuade them to
    mess around with NiMH AAs and battery chargers.


    > Of course some devices will fair OK with alkalines, but some cameras will
    > literally poop out before you know it, as Still... You're ready to dismiss
    > twice the life as no big deal. That seems odd to me.


    That's a blatant misrepresentation. Twice the life can be a big
    deal, but sometimes it isn't. When you can't take advantage of
    'twice the life', it certainly isn't a big deal. And sometimes
    'twice the life' evaporates so that it is not only much less than
    twice as much, but you even get less life from NiMH. Is your memory
    so poor that you forgot the examples I provided, or do you prefer to
    dismiss them in order to cling to your statement that can only be
    true when you exclude the examples that show the opposite? Again,
    the way you use YOUR camera is not the way everybody uses theirs.


    > You're doing an awful lot of quibbling over my use of the word "far."


    Use it appropriately and there'll be no disagreement.
    Extrapolating from when "FAR better" is a good description to all
    cases is ludicrous, because you can only do so by being blind to the
    cases when alkalines actually last longer and are a better solution.
    You don't let your camera collect dust for months, so therefore
    either nobody else does, or if they do (to your way of thinking)
    they shouldn't. Sorry, but when it comes to recommending equipment
    to others, I take into account their real world needs, not a
    personal fantasy world that I'd like everyone to fit into.


    > But this isn't really about you or your personal shooting habits.
    > It's simply a comparison of battery capacities.
    > In a field where people rave over "twice teh megapixels"..."twice the ISO
    > sensitivity"...twice the this and that" I think you're dismissing what most
    > people consider a VERY large improvement in performance. -And frankly, I
    > hope newbies reading along here take your post with a big fat grain of salt.
    > You are steering them in a direction that is likely to lead them toward
    > disappointment and needless expense.


    That's pure rubbish, and you do produce it by the ton. Even a
    newbie can see that you're dismissing their ability to think for
    themselves. I haven't tried steering *anyone* in any direction,
    whether it's alkalines or NiMH. You're the one that's steering
    everyone in one direction only. In one sense, it's safe to
    recommend using NiMH batteries if you have absolutely no knowledge
    of the camera that is owned or how it will be used. If the camera
    is not a new model, or if the owner will take a thousand or more
    pictures per year, NiMH batteries are almost certainly the better
    choice. But that may come with a price if the camera is efficient
    or the owner takes few pictures per year. For these people, if
    they use NiMH batteries it will increase their total operating costs
    and will almost always result in a decrease of convenience.


    >>But if I take a dozen pictures per day,
    >> every day, one set of alkalines will last FAR longer than NiMH.

    >
    > That's assuming you refuse to switch between two sets of batteries every so
    > often.


    How can one be so dense? Of course if you are allowed to resort
    to the use of a charger, rechargeable batteries will last far
    longer. But when you used the word "FAR", emphasizing it in caps,
    you meant that NiMH provided FAR more shots per charge than
    alkalines. When I show how in some cases you can get better life
    from alkalines than from NiMH (on a single charge) you then whine
    about refusing "to switch between two sets of batteries". But that
    completely missed the point. With my camera (not ANY camera, not
    yours, probably not the ones owned by most newbies, but mine, and a
    several other models and brands) I can take it on a trip lasting a
    couple of weeks and be confident that a fresh set of alkalines will
    allow me to take a dozen pictures each day. If I used NiMH instead,
    I wouldn't be as confident, and would either take two sets of fully
    charged batteries, or one set and a charger. Is that too hard to
    understand?


    > If you are intent on using them only occasionally, or until they either die
    > or are thrown away, then alkalines are STILL the expensive alternative.
    > Ever hear of a trickle charger? Two sets of batteries...one in the
    > camera...one kept in the charger always.
    > --No more wasted alkaline money...no more trash.
    > If you feel compelled to fill your trash with disposable batteries, then
    > feel free.


    While NiMH is generally more cost effective, I already showed
    above that this isn't always the case. No more batteries to throw
    in the trash that if NiMH were used. That in some cases of light
    usage a single set of alkaline batteries could last several years
    and take just as many pictures as a single set of rechargeables. I
    can get a set of alkalines (as I already mentioned) for less than a
    dollar. I can't get a charger and either one or two sets of
    rechargeables for anywhere near that price. One could accurately
    say that the cost of NiMH batteries would be FAR higher. By the
    way, since you obviously don't know any better, keeping batteries on
    trickle charge for months at a time is a good way to ruin them. But
    if you feel compelled to use NiMH batteries inappropriately feel
    free to do so. But then it's your trash that will get your
    rechargeables before their customary time.


    > As I've said--For those who refuse to swap batteries occasionally, then
    > alkalines will work for them.


    But I've never relied on such people to make my case. It's just a
    'straw man' argument you're using to deflect attention from real
    situations where any reasonable person might be better off using
    alkalines. Keep repeating your mantra if it makes you feel better.
    But it doesn't make you look better.


    > NiMh batteries sit in my flash sometimes for weeks with only occasional use,
    > and I don't have to keep swapping them out as you seem to imply. Unless
    > you're storing NiMh batteries for many weeks, they should retain plenty of
    > charge to keep most devices rolling.


    You've very carefully chosen 'weeks' when that's not the time
    frame I've been talking about. Is your memory so poor that you
    can't recall that I've been talking about people that use their
    cameras very infrequently? Sometimes once or twice each year.
    Sometimes less. I'm NOT talking about your usage. For the way you
    use your equipment, NiMH is fine. Nobody is trying to convince you
    that you'd be better off using alkalines. You wouldn't be. So
    don't use such a silly argument unless you really want to look
    foolish. If anyone only used their camera a couple times each year,
    you'd better believe they'd need to swap their rechargeable NiMH
    batteries for another set, whether the batteries were for the camera
    or for their flash.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 14, 2005
    #13
  14. Bacchus

    Mark² Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:01:26 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> I guess we do see the term differently, since I would consider DOUBLE the
    >> life, and...
    >> ...you don't throw it away and pay $$ again as FAR better.
    >> :)
    >> Perhaps you don't mind buying batteries ever time you turn around, but I
    >> suspect most people would rather have twice (or more) the life and
    >> comparatively zero cost.

    >
    > You're not THINKING.


    <Unbelievably long rant snipped>

    There are some instances where alkalines work well.
    For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
    Over and out.
     
    Mark², Jul 14, 2005
    #14
  15. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:32:43 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >
    >>> In newer cameras that aren't electricity hogs, high capacity NiMH
    >>> AA batteries last about twice as long as alkalines.

    >>
    >> In my limited experience the NiMH lasted 5 - 50 times longer. It
    >> depends on the camera.

    >
    >>> so in some cameras, the NiMH cells might
    >>> last 5 or 10 times as long.

    >
    > Evidently your experience was limited to older cameras that were
    > *real* battery hogs.


    Canon 20D and a not too old Olympus.


    > Unless I'm missing something, we're saying
    > pretty much the same thing. That said, I'd like to know what camera
    > got 50 times longer life from NiMH AAs than from alkalines. I've
    > never heard of any approaching differences of that magnitude.
    > Additionally, the camera(s) most likely to be the one(s) you're
    > referring to would probably have been made 5 or more years ago, when
    > alkalines were substantially the same as today's, but NiMH
    > capacities were significantly less, 1,300mah and 1,100mah not being
    > uncommon.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jul 14, 2005
    #15
  16. Bacchus

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    >> You're not THINKING.

    >
    > <Unbelievably long rant snipped>


    You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
    involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
    least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.


    > There are some instances where alkalines work well.
    > For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
    > Over and out.


    Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
    at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
    starting to wonder . . . :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 14, 2005
    #16
  17. Bacchus

    Mark² Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >>> You're not THINKING.

    >>
    >> <Unbelievably long rant snipped>

    >
    > You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
    > involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
    > least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.


    Don't mistake an exit for a concession...
    :)

    >> There are some instances where alkalines work well.
    >> For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
    >> Over and out.

    >
    > Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
    > at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
    > starting to wonder . . . :)


    Now that's hitting below the belt!
    PLONK!
    :)
    (kidding)
     
    Mark², Jul 14, 2005
    #17
  18. Bacchus

    Mark² Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:OPqBe.8820$Eo.8041@fed1read04...
    >
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    >> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> You're not THINKING.
    >>>
    >>> <Unbelievably long rant snipped>

    >>
    >> You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
    >> involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
    >> least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.

    >
    > Don't mistake an exit for a concession...
    > :)
    >
    >>> There are some instances where alkalines work well.
    >>> For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
    >>> Over and out.

    >>
    >> Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
    >> at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
    >> starting to wonder . . . :)

    >
    > Now that's hitting below the belt!
    > PLONK!
    > :)
    > (kidding)


    BTW--Don't pay to much attention to me tonight...I'm in a bad mood...
    Being told I'm wrong when I'm always right...every
    time...without-any-exception-cuz-I'm-perfect really makes me grumpy.
    :)
     
    Mark², Jul 14, 2005
    #18
  19. Bacchus

    Mark² Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:cRqBe.8821$Eo.1871@fed1read04...
    >
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:OPqBe.8820$Eo.8041@fed1read04...
    >>
    >> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:55:09 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    >>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> You're not THINKING.
    >>>>
    >>>> <Unbelievably long rant snipped>
    >>>
    >>> You stuck too long to a losing position. There was no rant
    >>> involved, except for your occasional forays in that direction. At
    >>> least you finally exited it, if not gracefully.

    >>
    >> Don't mistake an exit for a concession...
    >> :)
    >>
    >>>> There are some instances where alkalines work well.
    >>>> For most users, NiMh batteries will prove the better choice.
    >>>> Over and out.
    >>>
    >>> Which was my point all along. Too bad you wouldn't see it. But
    >>> at least you're no "uraniumcommittee", although at times I was
    >>> starting to wonder . . . :)

    >>
    >> Now that's hitting below the belt!
    >> PLONK!
    >> :)
    >> (kidding)

    >
    > BTW--Don't pay to much attention to me tonight...I'm in a bad mood...
    > Being told I'm wrong when I'm always right...every
    > time...without-any-exception-cuz-I'm-perfect really makes me grumpy.
    > :)


    Again... K-I-D-D-I-N-G-!-!
    (Just making sure... Things are tough around here lately...)
    You made valid points, ASSAR...
     
    Mark², Jul 14, 2005
    #19
  20. Bacchus

    Scott W Guest

    Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    >
    > Again... K-I-D-D-I-N-G-!-!
    > (Just making sure... Things are tough around here lately...)
    > You made valid points, ASSAR...


    I also think he makes some valid points, we own a Casio QV-R51, we also
    own a Sony F828 and a Canon 20D so you can imagine that the Casio does
    not get all that much use. It came with NiMh batteries and a charger
    from them, it will last for about forever on one set of batteries, and
    only uses two at that. We are going on a long camping trip and for the
    small amount of usage that this camera is going to get we are not
    bothering to take the NiMh batteries and charger, I fully expect two AA
    batteries to last for the whole time we are gone.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. psion
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    645
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    May 18, 2004
  2. jriegle

    Flash memory udeful life and data storage life

    jriegle, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    687
    jriegle
    Oct 17, 2003
  3. Koos Nolst Trenite
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    771
    Dale Houstman
    Aug 28, 2005
  4. 88059355

    Life Balance Coaching: Balance Work And Life Like A Pro

    88059355, Jan 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    651
  5. lbbss
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,632
Loading...

Share This Page