Canon Ixus vs a5x/a6x/a7x

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Andy Kent, May 15, 2006.

  1. Andy Kent

    Andy Kent Guest

    Can anyone say why Canon, as they seem to be promoting the Ixus as
    their flagship compact range, would decide not to carry over EOS
    features to the Ixuses as they have on the a5x/a6x/a7x, earning the
    comment in dpreview.com on the Ixus 750 that "the lack of any real
    control is unusual at this level"? (Is control /really/ that dubious on
    the Ixus?)

    And why, with LiIon emerging as the means of power to be aspired to,
    nothing in the a5x/a6x/a7x range uses it? Can one assume that a
    lightweight, LiIon-powered a5x/a6x/a7x is just around the corner?

    Andy
    Andy Kent, May 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andy Kent

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Andy Kent" <> writes:
    > And why, with LiIon emerging as the means of power to be aspired to,
    > nothing in the a5x/a6x/a7x range uses it? Can one assume that a
    > lightweight, LiIon-powered a5x/a6x/a7x is just around the corner?


    The A series runs on AA cells, as the letter "A" connotes. The
    lithium versions are the S series, like the SD550, SD700, etc.
    Lithium is not "emerging", by the way, it's on its way out, being
    preferable only in the smallest cameras (the larger S2IS/S3IS use
    AA's) and the largest and most power hungry (EOS-1D etc.). Camera ads
    used to tout LiIon as a great feature. Now they're quiet about it,
    like it's a dirty secret, and they instead advertise the universality
    of AA's. However, the SD series models are definitely smaller than
    the corresponding A series models, so they got something out of the
    special-purpose batteries.
    Paul Rubin, May 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andy Kent

    Andy Kent Guest

    Fair enough. But the main thing making me hesitate about the Ixus is
    the alleged lack of control. How valid is that concern?

    And why would Lithium cells be good in small or large but not medium
    cameras?
    Andy Kent, May 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Andy Kent

    Charles Guest

    In article <>, Andy
    Kent <> wrote:

    > Fair enough. But the main thing making me hesitate about the Ixus is
    > the alleged lack of control. How valid is that concern?


    They are ultra-compact point and shoot cameras. That is what you
    usually get with that class, little or no control. If you want control
    you need to be looking at something different.

    --
    Charles
    Charles, May 15, 2006
    #4
  5. Andy Kent

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Li ion batteries

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:

    >The A series runs on AA cells, as the letter "A" connotes. The
    >lithium versions are the S series, like the SD550, SD700, etc.
    >Lithium is not "emerging", by the way, it's on its way out, being
    >preferable only in the smallest cameras (the larger S2IS/S3IS use
    >AA's) and the largest and most power hungry (EOS-1D etc.). Camera ads
    >used to tout LiIon as a great feature. Now they're quiet about it,
    >like it's a dirty secret, and they instead advertise the universality
    >of AA's.


    I don't understand. If Li-ion batteries are on the way out,
    what will replace them?

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, May 15, 2006
    #5
  6. Andy Kent

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    Paul J Gans <> writes:
    > I don't understand. If Li-ion batteries are on the way out,
    > what will replace them?


    I don't mean they're on the way out technologically, I mean they're on
    their way out as a hot marketing point. Old fashioned AA NiMH appears
    to be coming back into style. As for expensive high tech batteries
    though, lithium polymer seems to be replacing lithium ion in the
    trendy miniature cell phone world.
    Paul Rubin, May 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Andy Kent

    SMS Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >
    >> The A series runs on AA cells, as the letter "A" connotes. The
    >> lithium versions are the S series, like the SD550, SD700, etc.
    >> Lithium is not "emerging", by the way, it's on its way out, being
    >> preferable only in the smallest cameras (the larger S2IS/S3IS use
    >> AA's) and the largest and most power hungry (EOS-1D etc.). Camera ads
    >> used to tout LiIon as a great feature. Now they're quiet about it,
    >> like it's a dirty secret, and they instead advertise the universality
    >> of AA's.

    >
    > I don't understand. If Li-ion batteries are on the way out,
    > what will replace them?


    Toshiba has developed a new Li-Ion battery that can be charged in about
    a minute. See "http://i-newswire.com/pr12515.html" This will be
    available later this year.

    AA batteries are popular in the lower-end cameras because it's much
    cheaper for the camera manufacturer to not have to include a battery and
    charger with each camera. Unfortunately, current NiMH technology has
    some serious issues (though Sanyo has solved one of the biggest
    problems, the self-discharge issue, with their new eneloop technology).

    Li-Ion batteries are not going away any time soon, as their is no other
    technology at this time that can offer the energy density, capacity,
    size, performance, number of recharge cycles, or low-temperature
    performance.

    See "http://batterydata.com/" for the facts on the different types of
    camera batteries.

    Steve
    SMS, May 16, 2006
    #7
  8. Andy Kent

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >Paul J Gans <> writes:
    >> I don't understand. If Li-ion batteries are on the way out,
    >> what will replace them?


    >I don't mean they're on the way out technologically, I mean they're on
    >their way out as a hot marketing point. Old fashioned AA NiMH appears
    >to be coming back into style. As for expensive high tech batteries
    >though, lithium polymer seems to be replacing lithium ion in the
    >trendy miniature cell phone world.


    OK. I can see that. Each has advantages.

    I thought for a moment we were about to start the Next New Thing
    craze. I've got enough different kinds of batteries right now.
    For me that would be the major reason for going to AA's.

    But I doubt one would fit in my Canon SD450... ;-)

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, May 16, 2006
    #8
  9. Andy Kent

    SMS Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >> Paul J Gans <> writes:
    >>> I don't understand. If Li-ion batteries are on the way out,
    >>> what will replace them?

    >
    >> I don't mean they're on the way out technologically, I mean they're on
    >> their way out as a hot marketing point. Old fashioned AA NiMH appears
    >> to be coming back into style. As for expensive high tech batteries
    >> though, lithium polymer seems to be replacing lithium ion in the
    >> trendy miniature cell phone world.

    >
    > OK. I can see that. Each has advantages.
    >
    > I thought for a moment we were about to start the Next New Thing
    > craze. I've got enough different kinds of batteries right now.
    > For me that would be the major reason for going to AA's.
    >
    > But I doubt one would fit in my Canon SD450... ;-)


    The battery chemistry was never a marketing point. The marketing was
    always based on the length of service, whether it was number of pictures
    for a digital camera, talk-time on a cell phone, recording time on a
    camcorder, etc. Outside the techie world, most users have no idea of the
    relative trade-offs of the different battery chemistries.

    With digital cameras, you have the camera makers trying to go after the
    low-end mass market, where shaving five dollars off the manufacturing
    cost is a major accomplishment. With Li-Ion, they have to include a
    battery that probably costs them about three dollars, and a charge that
    costs them about $2. With AA, they don't include anything, the buyer
    buys it separately, or already has the necessary pieces. Since newer
    digital cameras use a lot less power than older ones, they can get away
    with the cheaper power system.
    SMS, May 16, 2006
    #9
  10. Andy Kent

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    SMS <> wrote:
    >Paul J Gans wrote:
    >> Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:


    >>> I don't mean they're on the way out technologically, I mean they're on
    >>> their way out as a hot marketing point. Old fashioned AA NiMH appears
    >>> to be coming back into style. As for expensive high tech batteries
    >>> though, lithium polymer seems to be replacing lithium ion in the
    >>> trendy miniature cell phone world.

    >>
    >> OK. I can see that. Each has advantages.
    >>
    >> I thought for a moment we were about to start the Next New Thing
    >> craze. I've got enough different kinds of batteries right now.
    >> For me that would be the major reason for going to AA's.
    >>
    >> But I doubt one would fit in my Canon SD450... ;-)


    >The battery chemistry was never a marketing point. The marketing was
    >always based on the length of service, whether it was number of pictures
    >for a digital camera, talk-time on a cell phone, recording time on a
    >camcorder, etc. Outside the techie world, most users have no idea of the
    >relative trade-offs of the different battery chemistries.


    True, but not everyone is a newbie. Li-ion have several
    advantages including very high power density and immunity
    to moderately cold weather.

    The first is a weight advantage, the second helps a lot in
    cold climates.


    >With digital cameras, you have the camera makers trying to go after the
    >low-end mass market, where shaving five dollars off the manufacturing
    >cost is a major accomplishment. With Li-Ion, they have to include a
    >battery that probably costs them about three dollars, and a charge that
    >costs them about $2. With AA, they don't include anything, the buyer
    >buys it separately, or already has the necessary pieces. Since newer
    >digital cameras use a lot less power than older ones, they can get away
    >with the cheaper power system.


    Yes. I think this has its place, especially for what I'll call
    "home" photography when you are always near a source of batteries.

    But otherwise...

    ----- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, May 16, 2006
    #10
  11. Andy Kent

    SMS Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    Paul J Gans wrote:

    > True, but not everyone is a newbie. Li-ion have several
    > advantages including very high power density and immunity
    > to moderately cold weather.
    >
    > The first is a weight advantage, the second helps a lot in
    > cold climates.


    True, but in low end cameras, I think the newbies are the vast majority
    of buyers. In camcorders and cell phones there isn't any choice, you
    have to go with lithium ion for the power density.

    For higher end cameras, you'll occasionally find someone who simply goes
    non-linear at the prospect of purchasing proprietary Li-Ion packs
    (though for the more popular cameras there are good and inexpensive
    after-market packs) versus AA cells. Often these people either don't
    understand, or don't care about power density, cold weather performance,
    self-discharge, number of charge cycles, the convenience of a single
    pack versus multiple cells (though there is usually a thread running
    about how to keep track of AA cells), accurate charge level indication
    on the camera, reliability etc.
    SMS, May 16, 2006
    #11
  12. Re: Li ion batteries

    SMS <> writes:

    > For higher end cameras, you'll occasionally find someone who simply
    > goes non-linear at the prospect of purchasing proprietary Li-Ion
    > packs (though for the more popular cameras there are good and
    > inexpensive after-market packs) versus AA cells. Often these people
    > either don't understand, or don't care about power density, cold
    > weather performance, self-discharge, number of charge cycles, the
    > convenience of a single pack versus multiple cells (though there is
    > usually a thread running about how to keep track of AA cells),
    > accurate charge level indication on the camera, reliability etc.


    The weight of the batteries in my camera bag is insignificant.
    Besides, it's probably *increased* by going from AA-only to two
    different proprietary battery pack systems *plus* AA.

    The mess of chargers and cords is *definitely* increased.

    And $40 for a proprietary battery pack is not cheap.

    The importance of self-discharge depends on how much you shoot. I
    don't worry about it all *that* much, but it's a killer for casual
    snapshooters.

    I've had no trouble shooting on somewhat warm days (10-25F) in the
    winter with NiMH. I haven't tried arctic conditions -- not in my job
    description. Certainly for some people the improved cold-weather
    performance of NiMH is significant.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 16, 2006
    #12
  13. Andy Kent

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    On 16 May 2006 17:21:15 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > The importance of self-discharge depends on how much you shoot. I
    > don't worry about it all *that* much, but it's a killer for casual
    > snapshooters.


    What's really nice about many of the modern (introduced within the
    last year or two) cameras is that casual snapshooters no longer have
    a need for the higher usable capacity provided by NiMH
    rechargeables. Of course, most of these snapshooters won't be aware
    of this, and if they've heard anything at all within the last half
    dozen years, it will be the oft repeated "fact" that alkalines AAs
    don't work in cameras and that NiMH AAs must be used. But there are
    now a number of cameras from several manufacturers that will allow a
    single set of alkalines to last for well over 1000 shots. At the
    rate many casual shooter take pictures, that set of batteries could
    easily last a year or two . . . or more. And alkalines don't have
    any appreciable self discharge. I've found that alkalines retain an
    appreciable charge even after their expiration date, and most of the
    currently sold alkalines that I've seen have expiration dates
    ranging from 2011 to 2013.

    I don't find it very difficult finding fresh, brand name alkalines
    on sale for between 20 and 25 cents apiece in supermarkets and
    convenience drug stores. At those prices, for the price of a cheap
    charger and two sets of rechargeable batteries one could buy enough
    alkaline batteries to last a decade or two, by which time the
    rechargeable batteries and charger would long have made it to a
    local landfill. I recently splurged and bought a small pack of AA
    batteries at near twice the usual price, 50 cents each. But only
    because it included a bonus Three Stooges DVD. <g>
    ASAAR, May 17, 2006
    #13
  14. Andy Kent

    y_p_w Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On 16 May 2006 17:21:15 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    > > The importance of self-discharge depends on how much you shoot. I
    > > don't worry about it all *that* much, but it's a killer for casual
    > > snapshooters.

    >
    > At the
    > rate many casual shooter take pictures, that set of batteries could
    > easily last a year or two . . . or more. And alkalines don't have
    > any appreciable self discharge. I've found that alkalines retain an
    > appreciable charge even after their expiration date, and most of the
    > currently sold alkalines that I've seen have expiration dates
    > ranging from 2011 to 2013.


    However - they will leak if left in a device too long. I've seen it
    happen with the resulting damage to to the device. It's not a big
    issue with constant low-drain devices like wall clocks.

    > I don't find it very difficult finding fresh, brand name alkalines
    > on sale for between 20 and 25 cents apiece in supermarkets and
    > convenience drug stores. At those prices, for the price of a cheap
    > charger and two sets of rechargeable batteries one could buy enough
    > alkaline batteries to last a decade or two, by which time the
    > rechargeable batteries and charger would long have made it to a
    > local landfill. I recently splurged and bought a small pack of AA
    > batteries at near twice the usual price, 50 cents each. But only
    > because it included a bonus Three Stooges DVD. <g>


    Alkalines have their place. However - even something like a
    Canon A-series can take up to 2-4 times the number of shots
    on a charged set of NiMH AAs. My particular camera (PowerShot
    S1 IS) eats alkalines for lunch. I tried it out the first time with a
    fresh set of alkalines and it was asking for new batteries after
    about 70 pictures. I've been able to take 400+ shots on a
    single charge of NiMH AAs. NiMH AAs also outperform alkaline
    in flash recharging. I could have easily gone through $100 of
    alkalines at $1 for 4 in the time I've used two $10 pair of NiMH
    batteries. They're still going strong after two years, although I've
    moved them to a different device.

    There's also a very good chance of alkaline batteries leaking
    in long-term storage. I like alkalines for wall clocks and remote
    controls. It's nice having them as backups. Rechargeables in
    flashlights do run a risk of voltage reversal.
    y_p_w, May 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Andy Kent

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    On 16 May 2006 17:05:09 -0700, y_p_w wrote:

    >> At the
    >> rate many casual shooter take pictures, that set of batteries could
    >> easily last a year or two . . . or more. And alkalines don't have
    >> any appreciable self discharge. I've found that alkalines retain an
    >> appreciable charge even after their expiration date, and most of the
    >> currently sold alkalines that I've seen have expiration dates
    >> ranging from 2011 to 2013.

    >
    > However - they will leak if left in a device too long. I've seen it
    > happen with the resulting damage to to the device. It's not a big
    > issue with constant low-drain devices like wall clocks.


    That's possible, even likely with poorly designed cameras. But
    for the most part very unlikely. The "poor design" would be a
    camera that uses more than the minimal amount of power to keep the
    camera's clock/calendar running. The old Powershots, for instance,
    used a lithium button cell to maintain the time and camera data, and
    whether the main battery was installed or not, they had a life of at
    least 3 years. But the proprietary NiMH battery pack would run down
    very quickly if left in the camera, far faster than the normal self
    discharge rate. The manuals even warned that they should be removed
    from the camera. I can't imagine what drained them so quickly when
    the camera was powered off. Other cameras, such as my Fuji S5100
    don't use a separate button cell for backup, and the alkaline AAs
    would probably need several years to run down. There should be
    little risk of leakage if the batteries are changed yearly, but it
    would probably be wise to check them every 3 or 4 months anyway.
    I've never heard of lithium AAs leaking, so it would be interesting
    to find out how they compare with alkalines, and if they do have a
    non-trivial leakage rate, whether they'd be highly corrosive (like
    the old carbon/zinc cells), slightly less damaging (alkalines), or
    fairly harmless.


    > Alkalines have their place. However - even something like a
    > Canon A-series can take up to 2-4 times the number of shots
    > on a charged set of NiMH AAs. My particular camera (PowerShot
    > S1 IS) eats alkalines for lunch. I tried it out the first time with a
    > fresh set of alkalines and it was asking for new batteries after
    > about 70 pictures. I've been able to take 400+ shots on a
    > single charge of NiMH AAs. NiMH AAs also outperform alkaline
    > in flash recharging. I could have easily gone through $100 of
    > alkalines at $1 for 4 in the time I've used two $10 pair of NiMH
    > batteries. They're still going strong after two years, although I've
    > moved them to a different device.


    I can't be certain, but I think that others here have noted that
    the S2 IS is much less power hungry than the S1 IS. It should only
    be older A-series cameras that get 4x the battery life from NiMH
    cells. The ones sold for the last year or two are much better,
    using much less power, so alkalines last much longer relative to
    NiMH. I think that Canon rates them about 1/2 the life of NiMH when
    using the CIPA test procedure that stresses the batteries (lots of
    zooming, use of flash, LCD, etc.). There's no doubt that if anyone
    takes lots of pictures, especially when many of them use the flash,
    that rechargeable batteries become very practical. Additionally,
    since they get so much use, there isn't enough time for self
    discharge to become annoying. It might be worth verifying whether
    the S2 or S3 IS really gets much more life from its batteries. If
    so, it might make it worth upgrading your S1 earlier than you might
    have considered. :)


    > There's also a very good chance of alkaline batteries leaking
    > in long-term storage. I like alkalines for wall clocks and remote
    > controls. It's nice having them as backups.


    Well, NiMH are poor choices in clocks and remotes, but mainly from
    a convenience standpoint. Even though I've found that the alkalines
    in my TV and VCR's frequently used remotes lasts quite long (several
    years), they can't be forgotten about, since even though generic
    remotes can be bought for as little as $5, if leakage damages one of
    my Sony's remotes, a cheap replacement isn't possible. When a
    button on a VCR remote broke, several years ago, I found that Sony's
    replacement price was $70 or $75, only a few dollars less than I'd
    be able to pay to get a new Sony remote from a local store, one that
    also happened to include a free VCR along with the remote. :)


    > Rechargeables in flashlights do run a risk of voltage reversal.


    Only if you leave them powered on and forget to return to turn
    them off. If they use 2 or 3 cells, within seconds of the first
    cell becoming discharged, the light output will drop drastically.
    There might not even be enough voltage left to get a feeble glow
    from the bulb's filament. But you're right. If you turn your back
    on a flashlight for several minutes you might return to find a
    damaged cell.

    I've just about given up on using traditional flashlights, as I
    have several that use LEDs that are far superior. The ones that
    have modest light output get about 20 times greater life. Other
    lights that power the LEDs with AAA batteries last as long as larger
    flashlights that use D cells, even though their light output is
    greater, the brightness doesn't drop off nearly as rapidly, the
    light distribution is much more even, and the LED color is much
    "whiter" for most of the battery's life. Add to that, LEDs don't
    burn out like bulbs, which are also easily damaged by shock.
    ASAAR, May 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Andy Kent

    SMS Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    y_p_w wrote:

    > Alkalines have their place. However - even something like a
    > Canon A-series can take up to 2-4 times the number of shots
    > on a charged set of NiMH AAs. My particular camera (PowerShot
    > S1 IS) eats alkalines for lunch. I tried it out the first time with a
    > fresh set of alkalines and it was asking for new batteries after
    > about 70 pictures.


    A lot of digital cameras do very poorly on alkalines, including the
    Canon A series. I put some Energizer Lithium cells in my son's A series,
    and it's worked out well so far. I expect that they'll last at least two
    years at the rate he uses his camera. NiMH was a hassle, as the
    self-discharge almost assured dead batteries when he was ready to use
    it, and it was typically running out the door to school when he
    remembered that he needed a camera at school.
    SMS, May 17, 2006
    #16
  17. Andy Kent

    y_p_w Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    ASAAR wrote:

    > On 16 May 2006 17:05:09 -0700, y_p_w wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>At the
    >>>rate many casual shooter take pictures, that set of batteries could
    >>>easily last a year or two . . . or more. And alkalines don't have
    >>>any appreciable self discharge. I've found that alkalines retain an
    >>>appreciable charge even after their expiration date, and most of the
    >>>currently sold alkalines that I've seen have expiration dates
    >>>ranging from 2011 to 2013.

    >>
    >>However - they will leak if left in a device too long. I've seen it
    >>happen with the resulting damage to to the device. It's not a big
    >>issue with constant low-drain devices like wall clocks.

    >
    >
    > That's possible, even likely with poorly designed cameras. But
    > for the most part very unlikely. The "poor design" would be a
    > camera that uses more than the minimal amount of power to keep the
    > camera's clock/calendar running. The old Powershots, for instance,
    > used a lithium button cell to maintain the time and camera data, and
    > whether the main battery was installed or not, they had a life of at
    > least 3 years. But the proprietary NiMH battery pack would run down
    > very quickly if left in the camera, far faster than the normal self
    > discharge rate.


    My PowerShot S1 IS has a CR1220, located right next to the
    (AA) battery door hinge. My old S200 didn't have a backup.

    >
    >
    >>Alkalines have their place. However - even something like a
    >>Canon A-series can take up to 2-4 times the number of shots
    >>on a charged set of NiMH AAs. My particular camera (PowerShot
    >>S1 IS) eats alkalines for lunch. I tried it out the first time with a
    >>fresh set of alkalines and it was asking for new batteries after
    >>about 70 pictures. I've been able to take 400+ shots on a
    >>single charge of NiMH AAs. NiMH AAs also outperform alkaline
    >>in flash recharging. I could have easily gone through $100 of
    >>alkalines at $1 for 4 in the time I've used two $10 pair of NiMH
    >>batteries. They're still going strong after two years, although I've
    >>moved them to a different device.

    >
    >
    > I can't be certain, but I think that others here have noted that
    > the S2 IS is much less power hungry than the S1 IS. It should only
    > be older A-series cameras that get 4x the battery life from NiMH
    > cells. The ones sold for the last year or two are much better,
    > using much less power, so alkalines last much longer relative to
    > NiMH. I think that Canon rates them about 1/2 the life of NiMH when
    > using the CIPA test procedure that stresses the batteries (lots of
    > zooming, use of flash, LCD, etc.). There's no doubt that if anyone
    > takes lots of pictures, especially when many of them use the flash,
    > that rechargeable batteries become very practical. Additionally,
    > since they get so much use, there isn't enough time for self
    > discharge to become annoying. It might be worth verifying whether
    > the S2 or S3 IS really gets much more life from its batteries. If
    > so, it might make it worth upgrading your S1 earlier than you might
    > have considered. :)


    I just ordered an S3 IS on Sunday.

    >>There's also a very good chance of alkaline batteries leaking
    >>in long-term storage. I like alkalines for wall clocks and remote
    >>controls. It's nice having them as backups.

    >
    >
    > Well, NiMH are poor choices in clocks and remotes, but mainly from
    > a convenience standpoint. Even though I've found that the alkalines
    > in my TV and VCR's frequently used remotes lasts quite long (several
    > years), they can't be forgotten about, since even though generic
    > remotes can be bought for as little as $5, if leakage damages one of
    > my Sony's remotes, a cheap replacement isn't possible. When a
    > button on a VCR remote broke, several years ago, I found that Sony's
    > replacement price was $70 or $75, only a few dollars less than I'd
    > be able to pay to get a new Sony remote from a local store, one that
    > also happened to include a free VCR along with the remote. :)


    In general I've found that aftermarket remotes work quite
    well. Sony even make a few which (of course) are set at
    the factory with Sony device codes.

    >>Rechargeables in flashlights do run a risk of voltage reversal.

    >
    >
    > Only if you leave them powered on and forget to return to turn
    > them off. If they use 2 or 3 cells, within seconds of the first
    > cell becoming discharged, the light output will drop drastically.
    > There might not even be enough voltage left to get a feeble glow
    > from the bulb's filament. But you're right. If you turn your back
    > on a flashlight for several minutes you might return to find a
    > damaged cell.


    Sometimes I'll just leave a flashlight on a table. I was
    trying to cycle an old set of NiCads and forgot about it
    when one of the cells reversed. Probably should have just
    used my Maha charger with the condition feature.

    > I've just about given up on using traditional flashlights, as I
    > have several that use LEDs that are far superior. The ones that
    > have modest light output get about 20 times greater life. Other
    > lights that power the LEDs with AAA batteries last as long as larger
    > flashlights that use D cells, even though their light output is
    > greater, the brightness doesn't drop off nearly as rapidly, the
    > light distribution is much more even, and the LED color is much
    > "whiter" for most of the battery's life. Add to that, LEDs don't
    > burn out like bulbs, which are also easily damaged by shock.


    I thought of LEDs, but I don't think they're practical
    for all applications yet. LEDs seem to be taking over
    the bicycle headlamp world, but they're still not as
    bright as older halogen lamps. The real state of the
    art in bicycle headlamps are (I kid you not) rechargeable
    HID setups.

    <http://www.cygolite.com/light/products/1zForceNiMH.htm>
    y_p_w, May 17, 2006
    #17
  18. Andy Kent

    y_p_w Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    SMS wrote:

    > y_p_w wrote:
    >
    >> Alkalines have their place. However - even something like a
    >> Canon A-series can take up to 2-4 times the number of shots
    >> on a charged set of NiMH AAs. My particular camera (PowerShot
    >> S1 IS) eats alkalines for lunch. I tried it out the first time with a
    >> fresh set of alkalines and it was asking for new batteries after
    >> about 70 pictures.

    >
    >
    > A lot of digital cameras do very poorly on alkalines, including the
    > Canon A series. I put some Energizer Lithium cells in my son's A series,
    > and it's worked out well so far. I expect that they'll last at least two
    > years at the rate he uses his camera. NiMH was a hassle, as the
    > self-discharge almost assured dead batteries when he was ready to use
    > it, and it was typically running out the door to school when he
    > remembered that he needed a camera at school.


    Makes some sense for a rarely used camera. However - I find
    a set of 2500 mAh NiMH cells costs only slightly more than a
    set of lithium AAs.

    My other difficulty with alkalines is when I want to shoot
    for a while and want as much capacity as possible. I can
    remove a partially drained set and put in a charged set.
    When I get home I just charge both sets and don't worry
    about putting partially drained alkalines back in service.
    Of course the NiMH cells already last longer on a full
    charge.

    By the way, the US versions of the Ixus are marketed as
    the ELPH series, for anyone scratching their heads as to
    what an Ixus is.
    y_p_w, May 17, 2006
    #18
  19. Andy Kent

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:40:32 -0700, SMS misleadingly wrote:

    > A lot of digital cameras do very poorly on alkalines, including the
    > Canon A series. I put some Energizer Lithium cells in my son's A series,
    > and it's worked out well so far. I expect that they'll last at least two
    > years at the rate he uses his camera. NiMH was a hassle, as the
    > self-discharge almost assured dead batteries when he was ready to use
    > it, and it was typically running out the door to school when he
    > remembered that he needed a camera at school.


    That's not the whole truth, as you're well aware. Is there a
    camera made that can take more shots per charge than Canon's A610
    and A620? If your son had one, at the rate he uses the camera, one
    set of cheap alkalines could easily last longer than 2 years, and a
    set of lithium AAs might well last 4 or 5 years. Whether lithium or
    alkaline AAs are used, there'd be no self discharge to worry about.
    How many more years will it take for you to acknowledge that camera
    advances have made alkaline batteries the most suitable type for
    many, many camera owners? Not for all, to be sure, but it seems
    that your agenda prohibits you from telling the whole story.
    ASAAR, May 17, 2006
    #19
  20. Andy Kent

    y_p_w Guest

    Re: Li ion batteries

    ASAAR wrote:

    > On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:40:32 -0700, SMS misleadingly wrote:
    >
    >
    >>A lot of digital cameras do very poorly on alkalines, including the
    >>Canon A series. I put some Energizer Lithium cells in my son's A series,
    >>and it's worked out well so far. I expect that they'll last at least two
    >>years at the rate he uses his camera. NiMH was a hassle, as the
    >>self-discharge almost assured dead batteries when he was ready to use
    >>it, and it was typically running out the door to school when he
    >>remembered that he needed a camera at school.

    >
    >
    > That's not the whole truth, as you're well aware. Is there a
    > camera made that can take more shots per charge than Canon's A610
    > and A620?


    I downloaded the A610 manual. With the display on, it a
    rated 350 shots for alkalines or 500 with 2300 mAh Canon
    batteries (likely relabelled Sanyo). It's a rated 1300/
    1500 without the display.

    An EOS D20 might approach that number.

    > If your son had one, at the rate he uses the camera, one
    > set of cheap alkalines could easily last longer than 2 years, and a
    > set of lithium AAs might well last 4 or 5 years. Whether lithium or
    > alkaline AAs are used, there'd be no self discharge to worry about.
    > How many more years will it take for you to acknowledge that camera
    > advances have made alkaline batteries the most suitable type for
    > many, many camera owners? Not for all, to be sure, but it seems
    > that your agenda prohibits you from telling the whole story.


    Unfortunately one never knows how much juice is left in
    a battery. Certainly someone who puts away a camera is
    unlikely to take out the battery and measure its voltage.
    I'm always ready with an extra charged set of batteries
    and I'll make sure the set in the camera is charged
    before getting ready to use my camera.

    Rechargeables are definitely higher performance and are
    cost effective for people who actually take more than 10
    pictures a month.

    I certainly don't like the idea of throwing away spent
    batteries when rechargeables are available. Some countries
    have laws that require all spent batteries be recycled.
    y_p_w, May 17, 2006
    #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. David J. Gilmour

    Canon ixus 400 or canon ixus 2 ?

    David J. Gilmour, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    547
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    845
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    742
    Guest
    Dec 5, 2003
  4. Jason Smith

    Canon Ixus 430 vs Canon Ixus 40

    Jason Smith, Jan 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    306
    Dave Martindale
    Jan 30, 2005
  5. CANON IXUS 50 OR CANON IXUS 500

    , Jul 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
Loading...

Share This Page