Rechargable batteries

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@yahoo.com, Apr 15, 2007.

  1. Guest

    How fast is rechargeable batteries in digital cameras lost its power,
    if the camera is not in use?
    My camera has a Li-ion battery pack, and if I did not use the camera
    in a few weeks, the camera is not longer fully charge. It looks like
    the power drains out of the rechargeable batteries. On the other hand,
    I have a better confidence with a digital camera utilizing regular
    batteries (like the Canon A series), in which new AA batteries will
    retain its power a long time, even when the camera is not used. I may
    be wrong about this and would like some comments for those using the
    regular alkaline batteries vs. rechargeable Ni-MH or Li-ion
    batteries.
    I read an old article in this newsgroup, which commented that Li-ion
    batteries is better than Ni-MH in keeping the battery fully charged.
    Is this true?
    , Apr 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ASAAR Guest

    On 14 Apr 2007 18:20:27 -0700, wrote:

    > How fast is rechargeable batteries in digital cameras lost its power,
    > if the camera is not in use?
    > My camera has a Li-ion battery pack, and if I did not use the camera
    > in a few weeks, the camera is not longer fully charge. It looks like
    > the power drains out of the rechargeable batteries. On the other hand,
    > I have a better confidence with a digital camera utilizing regular
    > batteries (like the Canon A series), in which new AA batteries will
    > retain its power a long time, even when the camera is not used. I may
    > be wrong about this and would like some comments for those using the
    > regular alkaline batteries vs. rechargeable Ni-MH or Li-ion
    > batteries.
    > I read an old article in this newsgroup, which commented that Li-ion
    > batteries is better than Ni-MH in keeping the battery fully charged.
    > Is this true?


    It used to be true, but now an improved NiMH type is available
    that is probably even better than Li-Ion for retaining charge over
    extended periods. The only down side is that unlike the latest high
    capacity NiMH batteries, which are about 2,700 mAh capacity, the
    very slow self-discharge rate NiMH batteries are rated at 2,000 to
    2,100 mAh. Additionally, for cameras such as Canon's A-series, they
    use such a small amount of battery power that for some people, even
    alkaline AA batteries may prove to be more practical. The A6x0
    series (A620 through A640) can take up to 1,600 shots per charge
    using NiMH, and probably close to 1,000 shots using alkalines.
    These numbers are only for ideal conditions, such as taking shots
    outdoors using the viewfinder and not using the flash. If you take
    huge numbers of pictures, or take fewer, but a good number of shots
    using the flash, then NiMH batteries become more practical. If you
    think that you will not use the camera frequently enough to need to
    recharge the batteries at least every month or two, then don't get
    standard NiMH batteries. In that case, either alkalines or the low
    self-discharge rate NiMH batteries would be a much better choice.
    These go by different names. Sanyo's are called Eneloop batteries.
    RayOVac's version are called Hybrid batteries. Radio Shack sell
    some too, at a very inflated price. What they all have in common is
    that unlike standard NiMH batteries that need an extended full
    charge before they are used for the first time, the low
    self-discharge batteries come charged and can be used right out of
    the package, just as alkalines can.

    That said, your Li-Ion battery should not drain so quickly. If
    not used very much, it should retain its charge for months, not
    weeks. How old is your Li-Ion battery? Unlike NiMH batteries, even
    if they are well cared for, they often have to be replaced every
    couple of years. Usually what you see can be cured with a new
    battery. Unfortunately that's not always the case. It's rarer, but
    sometimes the problem is caused by a defective camera that's now
    draining the batteries at a higher rate when powered off. It could
    also be due to a battery charger that's no longer able to fully
    charge the battery. It's also unfortunate that doing enough testing
    to figure out the cause of the problem won't be easy unless you have
    additional cameras, batteries and chargers to compare. If you
    really like your current camera, try to get another battery for it.
    As long as you don't buy one made by the camera's manufacturer, you
    should be able to get one for $20 or less. If you don't think that
    it's worth doing, check out reviews of Canon's A-series cameras at
    DPReview.com. My preference would be for the A630 or A640 which use
    4 AA cells. The 2 cell models (A5x0 and A7x0) don't perform as
    quickly and don't match the image quality, but they are a little
    smaller, which some people prefer. The A710 also adds IS.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=alpha
    ASAAR, Apr 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ed Mullikin Guest

    I've taken almost 8,000 shots with my original Li-ion battery in a Sony
    camera and it still seems to be good. There may be some power drain between
    uses but it has never given me any noticeable problem.
    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 14 Apr 2007 18:20:27 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >> How fast is rechargeable batteries in digital cameras lost its power,
    >> if the camera is not in use?
    >> My camera has a Li-ion battery pack, and if I did not use the camera
    >> in a few weeks, the camera is not longer fully charge. It looks like
    >> the power drains out of the rechargeable batteries. On the other hand,
    >> I have a better confidence with a digital camera utilizing regular
    >> batteries (like the Canon A series), in which new AA batteries will
    >> retain its power a long time, even when the camera is not used. I may
    >> be wrong about this and would like some comments for those using the
    >> regular alkaline batteries vs. rechargeable Ni-MH or Li-ion
    >> batteries.
    >> I read an old article in this newsgroup, which commented that Li-ion
    >> batteries is better than Ni-MH in keeping the battery fully charged.
    >> Is this true?

    >
    > It used to be true, but now an improved NiMH type is available
    > that is probably even better than Li-Ion for retaining charge over
    > extended periods. The only down side is that unlike the latest high
    > capacity NiMH batteries, which are about 2,700 mAh capacity, the
    > very slow self-discharge rate NiMH batteries are rated at 2,000 to
    > 2,100 mAh. Additionally, for cameras such as Canon's A-series, they
    > use such a small amount of battery power that for some people, even
    > alkaline AA batteries may prove to be more practical. The A6x0
    > series (A620 through A640) can take up to 1,600 shots per charge
    > using NiMH, and probably close to 1,000 shots using alkalines.
    > These numbers are only for ideal conditions, such as taking shots
    > outdoors using the viewfinder and not using the flash. If you take
    > huge numbers of pictures, or take fewer, but a good number of shots
    > using the flash, then NiMH batteries become more practical. If you
    > think that you will not use the camera frequently enough to need to
    > recharge the batteries at least every month or two, then don't get
    > standard NiMH batteries. In that case, either alkalines or the low
    > self-discharge rate NiMH batteries would be a much better choice.
    > These go by different names. Sanyo's are called Eneloop batteries.
    > RayOVac's version are called Hybrid batteries. Radio Shack sell
    > some too, at a very inflated price. What they all have in common is
    > that unlike standard NiMH batteries that need an extended full
    > charge before they are used for the first time, the low
    > self-discharge batteries come charged and can be used right out of
    > the package, just as alkalines can.
    >
    > That said, your Li-Ion battery should not drain so quickly. If
    > not used very much, it should retain its charge for months, not
    > weeks. How old is your Li-Ion battery? Unlike NiMH batteries, even
    > if they are well cared for, they often have to be replaced every
    > couple of years. Usually what you see can be cured with a new
    > battery. Unfortunately that's not always the case. It's rarer, but
    > sometimes the problem is caused by a defective camera that's now
    > draining the batteries at a higher rate when powered off. It could
    > also be due to a battery charger that's no longer able to fully
    > charge the battery. It's also unfortunate that doing enough testing
    > to figure out the cause of the problem won't be easy unless you have
    > additional cameras, batteries and chargers to compare. If you
    > really like your current camera, try to get another battery for it.
    > As long as you don't buy one made by the camera's manufacturer, you
    > should be able to get one for $20 or less. If you don't think that
    > it's worth doing, check out reviews of Canon's A-series cameras at
    > DPReview.com. My preference would be for the A630 or A640 which use
    > 4 AA cells. The 2 cell models (A5x0 and A7x0) don't perform as
    > quickly and don't match the image quality, but they are a little
    > smaller, which some people prefer. The A710 also adds IS.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=alpha
    >
    Ed Mullikin, Apr 15, 2007
    #3
  4. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:20:10 -0400, Ed Mullikin wrote:

    > I've taken almost 8,000 shots with my original Li-ion battery in a Sony
    > camera and it still seems to be good. There may be some power drain
    > between uses but it has never given me any noticeable problem.


    That's not surprising. In *heavily* used cameras, it wouldn't be
    unusual for a rechargeable battery to be good for 50,000, 100,000
    shots or even much more. It's when you take pictures at a much
    lower rate that the maximum lifetime number of shots per battery
    drops drastically. Li-Ion batteries are harder to abuse than
    traditional Ni-MH batteries. But it can still happen, especially by
    those that use their cameras so infrequently that they're frequently
    stored for many months between uses. Give them a little charge (a
    full charge isn't necessary) every 4 to 6 months and they should do
    just fine. The OP obviously has an atypical problem, but such
    problems can occur with any and all camera brands, even Sony.
    ASAAR, Apr 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > How fast is rechargeable batteries in digital cameras lost its power,
    > if the camera is not in use?
    > My camera has a Li-ion battery pack, and if I did not use the camera
    > in a few weeks, the camera is not longer fully charge. It looks like
    > the power drains out of the rechargeable batteries. On the other hand,
    > I have a better confidence with a digital camera utilizing regular
    > batteries (like the Canon A series), in which new AA batteries will
    > retain its power a long time, even when the camera is not used. I may
    > be wrong about this and would like some comments for those using the
    > regular alkaline batteries vs. rechargeable Ni-MH or Li-ion
    > batteries.
    > I read an old article in this newsgroup, which commented that Li-ion
    > batteries is better than Ni-MH in keeping the battery fully charged.
    > Is this true?
    >


    Yes. NiMH batteries do have considerable self-discharge rates. This
    will vary by manufacturer, and even specific manufacturing 'runs'. The
    new 'hybrid', and Eneloop batteries seem to be a solution for this
    problem, at the sacrifice of some total power capacity. Lithium-ion
    batteries have a much slower rate of self-discharge, and shouldn't be a
    significant problem in this respect.

    Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year shelf
    life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less long-term
    pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good solution for those
    who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.
    Ron Hunter, Apr 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Ron Hunter wrote:
    > Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year
    > shelf life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less
    > long-term pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good
    > solution for those who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.


    Or as a backup in your camera bag. _VERY_ useful.

    Only problem: difficult to find. Do you know of a source for lithium
    disposable 2CR5 (aka DL245 aka EN-EL1)?

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 15, 2007
    #6
  7. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:57:56 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

    >> I read an old article in this newsgroup, which commented that Li-ion
    >> batteries is better than Ni-MH in keeping the battery fully charged.
    >> Is this true?
    >>

    >
    > Yes. NiMH batteries do have considerable self-discharge rates. This
    > will vary by manufacturer, and even specific manufacturing 'runs'. The
    > new 'hybrid', and Eneloop batteries seem to be a solution for this
    > problem, at the sacrifice of some total power capacity. Lithium-ion
    > batteries have a much slower rate of self-discharge, and shouldn't be a
    > significant problem in this respect.


    Not really. Li-Ion's self discharge rate is much lower than
    traditional NiMH cells, but probably not quite as low as the self
    discharge rate of Eneloops and Hybrids. These are sold fully
    charged, retain a considerable amount of their initial charge for
    very long periods and can be used out of the package without
    charging even if bought after sitting on a store's shelf for a year
    or two. Li-Ion batteries can't go nearly that long between charges.


    > Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year shelf
    > life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less long-term
    > pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good solution for those
    > who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.


    True, but those who take few pictures on a sporadic basis might
    also want to consider using plain old alkaline AA cells. In the
    older cameras that were usually significant power hogs the more
    expensive lithium AA cells could be cost effective because they
    wouldn't waste as much energy internally, as alkalines would. But
    with many of the more efficient cameras made in the last year or
    two, alkaline batteries do much better, relatively. Not quite as
    good as lithiums, but not too much worse, and at their much lower
    prices can be much more cost effective than lithiums, which I
    believe have shelf lives of about 15 years. While the shelf life of
    alkalines isn't quite as good, at about 7 or 8 years it's still
    excellent, and for all practical purposes much more than needed.
    After all, most digital cameras will have been replaced long before
    the (sometimes) unused alkaline AA cells packed in the camera boxes
    will have lost their much of their original capacity. For those
    with weak knees and creaking elbows, lithium AAs might be the
    batteries of choice since they don't weigh as much as alkalines. <g>
    ASAAR, Apr 15, 2007
    #7
  8. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:50:00 GMT, Jürgen Exner wrote:

    >> Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year
    >> shelf life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less
    >> long-term pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good
    >> solution for those who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.

    >
    > Or as a backup in your camera bag. _VERY_ useful.
    >
    > Only problem: difficult to find. Do you know of a source for lithium
    > disposable 2CR5 (aka DL245 aka EN-EL1)?


    Probably any good camera store, such as B&H, Adorama, perhaps J&R.
    I hope that you also have an equivalent rechargeable battery if your
    camera is old and eats batteries as my Canon Powershots do. They
    use either the 2CR5 or Canon's proprietary NiMH battery pack, which
    unfortunately won't be usable in other cameras that use 2CR5
    batteries, since the NB-5H has a large protrusion that would prevent
    them from fitting in any but Canon Powershots. An NB-5H compatible
    battery won't cost more than 2 or 3 times as much as a 2CR5, but can
    be recharged hundreds of times, making 2CR5 batteries prohibitively
    expensive unless they're only used as emergency backups. This is
    the Battery Performance table from the PowerShot S10/S20 manual.
    Your camera may be more battery frugal. The alignment of the table
    may be way off if viewed without a fixed pitch font:

    > LCD Monitor LCD Monitor Replay
    > ON OFF (Minutes)
    > Battery Pack NB-5H Approx. Approx. Approx.
    > fully charged) 55 shots 230 shots 50 min.
    > 2CR5 Lithium Battery Approx. Approx. Approx.
    > Sanyo brand, new) 65 shots 400 shots 80 min.
    ASAAR, Apr 15, 2007
    #8
  9. ASAAR wrote:
    >> Do you know of a source for lithium
    >> disposable 2CR5 (aka DL245 aka EN-EL1)?

    >
    > Probably any good camera store, such as B&H, Adorama, perhaps J&R.
    > I hope that you also have an equivalent rechargeable battery if your
    > camera is old and eats batteries as my Canon Powershots do.


    You bet ;-)

    > They
    > use either the 2CR5 or Canon's proprietary NiMH battery pack, which
    > unfortunately won't be usable in other cameras that use 2CR5
    > batteries, since the NB-5H has a large protrusion that would prevent
    > them from fitting in any but Canon Powershots.



    The EN-EL1 is the rechargable equivalent from Nikon and it has the same form
    and size as the 2CR5 without any protrusions. Unfortunately it is not
    exactly cheap, either.

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 15, 2007
    #9
  10. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:01:56 GMT, Jürgen Exner wrote:

    >> They use either the 2CR5 or Canon's proprietary NiMH battery pack,
    >> which unfortunately won't be usable in other cameras that use 2CR5
    >> batteries, since the NB-5H has a large protrusion that would prevent
    >> them from fitting in any but Canon Powershots.

    >
    >
    > The EN-EL1 is the rechargable equivalent from Nikon and it has the
    > same form and size as the 2CR5 without any protrusions. Unfortunately
    > it is not exactly cheap, either.


    B&H has Canon's NB-5H for $39.95, which I think is about $10 less
    than I paid for them back in 2000. Kind of overpriced since it
    contains little more than 5 NiMH AAA cells and that probably costs
    Canon less than $5 to manufacture. B&H has 2CR5 batteries from
    Monster-Power, Kodak and "General Brand" for $11, $10 and $6,
    respectively. By greatly enlarging the picture of the "General
    Brand" 2CR5 you can see that it is made by Sanyo. By calling it
    "General Brand" however, there's no guarantee that if you ordered
    one that you'd get a Sanyo 2CR5. I did, 7 years ago and got a
    Sanyo. :) This wouldn't concern me very much, as I doubt that B&H
    would replace it with a clone that didn't have at least 95% of the
    2CR5's rated capacity.

    B&H also has the EN-EL1 for $34.95, but cheaper clones are
    available. Adorama and J&R usually have lower clone battery prices
    than B&H. I bought some Maxell NB-5H clones from J&R a year or two
    ago for $20, Energizer's version for the Powershot is the ER-D110
    and there are probably others. Energizer's version of Nikon's
    EN-EL1 is their ER-D300. Energizer has a "Where To Buy Online" page
    at

    http://www.energizer.com/wheretobuy/default.asp

    and the first link I checked (www.batteries.com) had the ER-D110
    and ER-D300 for extremely high prices, $39.31 and $50.55,
    respectively. Actually a bit cheaper if you drill down deeper to
    look at individual batteries, where the prices drop to $33.41 and
    $42.96 for the ER-D100 and ER-D300.

    They also have their own "batteries.com" brand of both, $13.47 for
    their NB-5H clone and $12.35 for their EN-EL1 clone. Since the
    NB-5H uses NiMH cells and the EN-EL1 uses Li-Ion, that shows the
    tremendous markup manufacturers get for their proprietary batteries,
    whether they're NiMH or Li-Ion based, and if priced fairly probably
    would sell for about the same as standard NiMH AA cells.
    ASAAR, Apr 15, 2007
    #10
  11. SMS Guest

    wrote:
    > How fast is rechargeable batteries in digital cameras lost its power,
    > if the camera is not in use?
    > My camera has a Li-ion battery pack, and if I did not use the camera
    > in a few weeks, the camera is not longer fully charge.


    If the Li-Ion pack is more than three years old then the problem is not
    that the battery is losing its charge, it's that it's not getting fully
    charged to begin with.

    Li-Ion batteries will last _far_ longer during periods of non-use than
    NiMH due to their very low self-discharge rate. However they will go
    bad, even when unused, after about three years. NiMH batteries have a
    longer shelf life, about five years.

    > I read an old article in this newsgroup, which commented that Li-ion
    > batteries is better than Ni-MH in keeping the battery fully charged.
    > Is this true?


    You can see the self-discharge rate chart at
    "http://nordicgroup.us/battery/sd.gif"

    The exception with NiMH is the new Sanyo Eneloop cells. If you're buying
    an AA powered camera that will have long periods of non-use (more than
    two weeks) then consider getting Eneloop rechargeable batteries.

    For all the information on the trade-offs between the different battery
    types, click to "http://batterydata.com/".
    SMS, Apr 15, 2007
    #11
  12. SMS Guest

    Jürgen Exner wrote:
    > ASAAR wrote:
    >>> Do you know of a source for lithium
    >>> disposable 2CR5 (aka DL245 aka EN-EL1)?

    >> Probably any good camera store, such as B&H, Adorama, perhaps J&R.
    >> I hope that you also have an equivalent rechargeable battery if your
    >> camera is old and eats batteries as my Canon Powershots do.

    >
    > You bet ;-)
    >
    >> They
    >> use either the 2CR5 or Canon's proprietary NiMH battery pack, which
    >> unfortunately won't be usable in other cameras that use 2CR5
    >> batteries, since the NB-5H has a large protrusion that would prevent
    >> them from fitting in any but Canon Powershots.

    >
    >
    > The EN-EL1 is the rechargable equivalent from Nikon and it has the same form
    > and size as the 2CR5 without any protrusions. Unfortunately it is not
    > exactly cheap, either.


    $12 at "http://sterlingtek.com/nikcool775di.html"
    SMS, Apr 15, 2007
    #12
  13. Guest


    >Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year shelf
    >life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less long-term
    >pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good solution for those
    >who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.



    1.5 volt disposable lithium's are not recommended by all Camera
    manufacturers. Read the manual first.
    , Apr 16, 2007
    #13
  14. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >>Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year shelf
    >>life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less long-term
    >>pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good solution for those
    >>who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.

    >
    >
    > 1.5 volt disposable lithium's are not recommended by all Camera
    > manufacturers. Read the manual first.


    Not recommended in my Canon S3IS but they work fine. Think the main reason
    for not recommending them is that in use they can get warmer than other
    types.
    Jack Torrence, Apr 17, 2007
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter Guest

    Jürgen Exner wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year
    >> shelf life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less
    >> long-term pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good
    >> solution for those who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.

    >
    > Or as a backup in your camera bag. _VERY_ useful.
    >
    > Only problem: difficult to find. Do you know of a source for lithium
    > disposable 2CR5 (aka DL245 aka EN-EL1)?
    >
    > jue
    >
    >

    Nope. I only use cameras that use AA batteries. Easy to find, not
    proprietary.
    Ron Hunter, Apr 17, 2007
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:57:56 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >>> I read an old article in this newsgroup, which commented that Li-ion
    >>> batteries is better than Ni-MH in keeping the battery fully charged.
    >>> Is this true?
    >>>

    >> Yes. NiMH batteries do have considerable self-discharge rates. This
    >> will vary by manufacturer, and even specific manufacturing 'runs'. The
    >> new 'hybrid', and Eneloop batteries seem to be a solution for this
    >> problem, at the sacrifice of some total power capacity. Lithium-ion
    >> batteries have a much slower rate of self-discharge, and shouldn't be a
    >> significant problem in this respect.

    >
    > Not really. Li-Ion's self discharge rate is much lower than
    > traditional NiMH cells, but probably not quite as low as the self
    > discharge rate of Eneloops and Hybrids. These are sold fully
    > charged, retain a considerable amount of their initial charge for
    > very long periods and can be used out of the package without
    > charging even if bought after sitting on a store's shelf for a year
    > or two. Li-Ion batteries can't go nearly that long between charges.
    >
    >
    >> Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year shelf
    >> life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less long-term
    >> pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good solution for those
    >> who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.

    >
    > True, but those who take few pictures on a sporadic basis might
    > also want to consider using plain old alkaline AA cells. In the
    > older cameras that were usually significant power hogs the more
    > expensive lithium AA cells could be cost effective because they
    > wouldn't waste as much energy internally, as alkalines would. But
    > with many of the more efficient cameras made in the last year or
    > two, alkaline batteries do much better, relatively. Not quite as
    > good as lithiums, but not too much worse, and at their much lower
    > prices can be much more cost effective than lithiums, which I
    > believe have shelf lives of about 15 years. While the shelf life of
    > alkalines isn't quite as good, at about 7 or 8 years it's still
    > excellent, and for all practical purposes much more than needed.
    > After all, most digital cameras will have been replaced long before
    > the (sometimes) unused alkaline AA cells packed in the camera boxes
    > will have lost their much of their original capacity. For those
    > with weak knees and creaking elbows, lithium AAs might be the
    > batteries of choice since they don't weigh as much as alkalines. <g>
    >


    AA alkalines are a viable alternative, IF the camera uses them. I
    believe in following the manual recommendations on batteries. I have
    two Kodak cameras, one allows alkalines (one set was included with the
    camera and took about 100 shots), the other manual forbids use of
    alkalines. A lot depends on the camera, and what power levels it needs.
    I qualify for the weak knees and creaking elbows (and other parts). Grin.
    Ron Hunter, Apr 17, 2007
    #16
  17. Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:43:05 +0100, "Jack Torrence"
    <room217[at]overlook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >>>Another solution is the lithium disposables, which have a 10 year shelf
    >>>life, and no self-discharge problem, with low weight, and less long-term
    >>>pollution problems than the NiMH batteries. A good solution for those
    >>>who take a few pictures on a sporadic basis.

    >>
    >>
    >> 1.5 volt disposable lithium's are not recommended by all Camera
    >> manufacturers. Read the manual first.

    >
    >Not recommended in my Canon S3IS but they work fine. Think the main reason
    >for not recommending them is that in use they can get warmer than other
    >types.
    >

    I believe the reason lithium's are not recommended for some cameras
    is because they have the ability to recharge the flash unit 1.5 times
    faster than a Nimh. This means that the Xenon flash tube has to be
    able to dissipate 1.5 times more heat if fired rapidly as soon as it
    gets charged.
    , Apr 17, 2007
    #17
  18. ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:56:49 -0400, wrote:

    > >Not recommended in my Canon S3IS but they work fine. Think the main reason
    > >for not recommending them is that in use they can get warmer than other
    > >types.
    > >

    > I believe the reason lithium's are not recommended for some cameras
    > is because they have the ability to recharge the flash unit 1.5 times
    > faster than a Nimh. This means that the Xenon flash tube has to be
    > able to dissipate 1.5 times more heat if fired rapidly as soon as it
    > gets charged.


    While I've heard that before I don't think it's an accurate
    description of why some manufacturers don't recommend the use of
    lithium cells. Most data I've seen indicates that both NiCad and
    NiMH cells usually recharge the flash's capacitor much more quickly
    than lithium cells. As an example, Nikon's SB-800 manual states
    that when 4 AA cells are used, lithium has a minimum recycling time
    of 7.5 seconds and is good for a minimum of 170 flashes. NiCad and
    NiMH batteries have minimum listed recharge times of 4.0 seconds and
    are good for up to 90 and 150 flashes, respectively. These times
    were for cells rated at 1,000 mAh (NiCad) and 2,000 mAh (NiMH), so
    the use of 2,700 mAh NiMH cells should provide slightly more than
    200 flashes. All three types, btw, were deemed to be exhausted when
    the recycle time slowed to 30 seconds.

    Interestingly, the manual also suggests another rule for
    determining when batteries should be replaced or recharged. For
    alkaline batteries it's when the ready-light takes up to 30 seconds
    to come on, so no difference here. For all the others it suggests
    replacing lithium cells when the ready-light takes 10 seconds or
    longer to turn on, and recharging NiCad and NiMH cells also when the
    ready-light takes 10 seconds to turn on. The alkaline anomaly is
    probably due to the fact that when the ready-light slows to 10
    seconds for alkalines, they still contain a large amount of their
    original energy, and if not used for a while will have a significant
    voltage rebound. Also because due to their much flatter voltage
    curves, when lithium, NiCD and NiMH cells approach 10 seconds for
    the ready light to come on, they're probably very close to being
    exhausted, and a 30 second delay may arrive very quickly.

    Something else the manual stated may be the real reason why the
    use of lithium batteries should be avoided. It says :

    > Depending on battery specifications, when these batteries become hot,
    > the safety circuits are activated, cutting off power. This often occurs
    > when the flash unit is operated in the repeating flash mode. Battery
    > power will recover when the temperature returns to normal.


    It probably wouldn't be very good for the integrity of files
    stored on a flash card if immediately after a flash, when the
    charging starts, if the lithium cells cut out before writing to the
    card had completed. Another reason may be due to differences in the
    chemistry of different battery types. Lithium cells can become very
    hot while they're used. NiCD and NiMH can become very hot while
    they're being charged, but IIRC, they don't become particularly hot
    while they're being used. The combined heat generated from both a
    heavily used flash and lithium batteries may be dangerously high for
    a small camera or flash unit that doesn't have good ventilation.
    ASAAR, Apr 17, 2007
    #18
  19. Guest

    O
    >> I believe the reason lithium's are not recommended for some cameras
    >> is because they have the ability to recharge the flash unit 1.5 times
    >> faster than a Nimh. This means that the Xenon flash tube has to be
    >> able to dissipate 1.5 times more heat if fired rapidly as soon as it
    >> gets charged.

    >
    > While I've heard that before I don't think it's an accurate
    >description of why some manufacturers don't recommend the use of
    >lithium cells. Most data I've seen indicates that both NiCad and
    >NiMH cells usually recharge the flash's capacitor much more quickly
    >than lithium cells. As an example, Nikon's SB-800 manual states
    >that when 4 AA cells are used, lithium has a minimum recycling time
    >of 7.5 seconds and is good for a minimum of 170 flashes. NiCad and
    >NiMH batteries have minimum listed recharge times of 4.0 seconds and
    >are good for up to 90 and 150 flashes, respectively.


    The manual also says that Alkaline's will recharge the flash in 6
    seconds. Something is wrong with the manual or spec.. Alkaline's
    have a higher internal resistance than a Lithium and should take
    longer to recharge a flash unit.
    , Apr 17, 2007
    #19
  20. ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:15:09 -0400, wrote:

    > The manual also says that Alkaline's will recharge the flash in 6
    > seconds. Something is wrong with the manual or spec.. Alkaline's
    > have a higher internal resistance than a Lithium and should take
    > longer to recharge a flash unit.


    True, but I'd go with the manual. A fresh alkaline cell probably
    is capable of delivering a greater maximum current than lithium
    cells, because lithium cells also have built in current limiters. I
    just checked Energizer's "Application Manual for Lithium Iron
    Disulfide (Li/FeS2)" and it states :

    > This manual contains general characteristics and guidelines for
    > Lithium/FeS2 L91 (AA) and L92 (AAA) batteries.
    > For additional battery information, please review the current datasheets at
    > http://data.energizer.com , or contact us at http://www.energizer.com .

    . . .

    > Because of the number of other variables involved, it is difficult
    > to predict in advance whether the L91 and L92 batteries can operate
    > under certain load conditions. The maximum continuous current
    > drain is established at 2.0 amps for L91 and 1.5 amps for L92;
    > however, higher pulses can be achieved.


    This is probably due to the fact that the lithium cells include a
    "Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) Thermal Switch" whose task
    is to greatly reduce current flow when the cells overheat, but which
    also results in a reduced maximum current capability. I'd guess
    that the lithium and rechargeable batteries maintain recycle times
    near their minimums far longer than alkalines, so their 6 second
    minimum recycle time will increase fairly quickly, and the reason
    for this is probably related to the "alkaline anomaly" I mentioned.
    So if the alkalines are allowed an extended rest, they might regain
    a very low recycle time for a flash or two, but this time will
    quickly increase, whereas the lithiums and rechargeables will stay
    nearer to their minimum recycle times much longer than alkalines
    can. Caveat - I don't have an SB-800 so unless/until I get one,
    this is just an "educated guess". :)
    ASAAR, Apr 17, 2007
    #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. Wessy1

    Rechargable batteries for digital flash?

    Wessy1, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    604
    zuuum
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. andy

    help! rechargable batteries

    andy, Jan 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    390
  3. Ray Paseur

    Rechargable CR123 Batteries

    Ray Paseur, Jan 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,876
    G. Louie
    Jan 13, 2004
  4. Graham

    Rechargable batteries for Digital

    Graham, Jul 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    295
    Joseph Meehan
    Jul 5, 2004
  5. zxcvar
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    872
    Bones
    Dec 2, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page