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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mikescollan@hotmail.com, Oct 24, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Test caried out using:-
    Olympus SP-350 camera c/w 1Gb high speed xD card
    Full Auto mode ; HQ 3264 x 2448 ; Flash always
    Fixed target 3m away.

    Using 2x2700mAh Vapextech NiMH AA Cells
    4 weeks old & cycled about 5 times (Fresh from charger)
    after 18 mins 120 shots taken - Camera starts to slow down
    after 38 mins 202 shots taken - (10 secs+ per shot now)
    after 65 mins 300 shots taken
    (camera now unusable due to being so slow)
    As a comparison against MY normal useage, I have seen these batteries
    stop working after 60 mins of a dive and approx 50 shots

    Using new, freshly charged Power-Plus 1300mAh RCR-V3 Li-Ion cell.
    18 min = 185 shots
    38 min = 395 shots
    59 min = 604 shots (card full - reformatted it & continued - clock
    still running throughout)
    65 min = 651 shots
    Battery still showing green. still 6-7 seconds to take a shot & be
    ready for the next one.

    Fairly conclusive.
    Longer lasting, Cycles flash quicker, Takes more shots.
    I know what I'll be recommending.
    , Oct 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > Using 2x2700mAh Vapextech NiMH AA Cells...
    > Using new, freshly charged Power-Plus 1300mAh RCR-V3 Li-Ion cell....


    Something is wrong here. Did you do a capacity test on those
    Vapextech cells? The 2700 mah rating may be way overstated.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. m Ransley Guest

    Do it with cells from a company of known and proven quality, Sanyo.
    Vaportex is doutfull of 2700 ma since these are relativly new and
    possibly junk compared to proven Sanyos.
    m Ransley, Oct 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Dave Cohen Guest

    wrote:
    > Test caried out using:-
    > Olympus SP-350 camera c/w 1Gb high speed xD card
    > Full Auto mode ; HQ 3264 x 2448 ; Flash always
    > Fixed target 3m away.
    >
    > Using 2x2700mAh Vapextech NiMH AA Cells
    > 4 weeks old & cycled about 5 times (Fresh from charger)
    > after 18 mins 120 shots taken - Camera starts to slow down
    > after 38 mins 202 shots taken - (10 secs+ per shot now)
    > after 65 mins 300 shots taken
    > (camera now unusable due to being so slow)
    > As a comparison against MY normal useage, I have seen these batteries
    > stop working after 60 mins of a dive and approx 50 shots
    >
    > Using new, freshly charged Power-Plus 1300mAh RCR-V3 Li-Ion cell.
    > 18 min = 185 shots
    > 38 min = 395 shots
    > 59 min = 604 shots (card full - reformatted it & continued - clock
    > still running throughout)
    > 65 min = 651 shots
    > Battery still showing green. still 6-7 seconds to take a shot & be
    > ready for the next one.
    >
    > Fairly conclusive.
    > Longer lasting, Cycles flash quicker, Takes more shots.
    > I know what I'll be recommending.
    >

    I looked this up on the web. I don't see how these could be used as AA
    replacement on my Canon. I assume your camera takes the package shown.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Oct 24, 2006
    #4
  5. wrote:
    > Test caried out using:-
    >
    > Using new, freshly charged Power-Plus 1300mAh RCR-V3 Li-Ion cell.
    > Fairly conclusive.
    > Longer lasting, Cycles flash quicker, Takes more shots.
    > I know what I'll be recommending.


    I have said before, junk your NiMh and use either Lithium AA
    or CR-V3.
    Even Alkalines give better refresh rates between shots taken.
    Furthermore, you will always mix up your batteries.
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Oct 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    m Ransley wrote:
    > Do it with cells from a company of known and proven quality, Sanyo.
    > Vaportex is doutfull of 2700 ma since these are relativly new and
    > possibly junk compared to proven Sanyos.


    I had previously tried it with Uniross 2000 mAh (when comparing against
    the Vapextech) and the vapextech cells easily outperformed those. Or
    do those not count as proven? I don't have the figures to hand, but it
    was something in the region of 260 shots before becoming unusably slow,
    with the same kind of performance in terms of flash cycle time.

    Additionally, the way I use the camera (usually in an underwater
    housing) means that the low temperature performance of the Li-Ion
    technology over that of NiMH means the choice is a no brainer for me.

    By all means continue to use NiMH, I only posted the information as I
    found very little when I was deciding whether to try Li-Ion.
    , Oct 25, 2006
    #6
  7. m Ransley Guest

    Li- ion are very very good but my camera and many can`t use them. One of
    the camera review sites posted a test of all manufacturers of NiMh
    actual capacities, your biggest manufacturers that have the best cells
    are Energiser, Panasonic and Sanyo. I believe some 2700 brands are
    rebadged 2300-2500 cells. At present I think Sanyos are tops. I believe
    they have a new 2700 called Eneloop that holds its charge better. For a
    camera to use both is great, but otherwise I prefer NiMh, they are cheap
    and available most anyplace if you need them in a hurry.
    m Ransley, Oct 25, 2006
    #7
  8. Paul Rubin Guest

    (m Ransley) writes:
    > rebadged 2300-2500 cells. At present I think Sanyos are tops. I believe
    > they have a new 2700 called Eneloop that holds its charge better.


    The Eneloops do hold charge better (shown in tests) but their capacity
    is only about 2000 mah. The improved charge retention does not come
    for free.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 25, 2006
    #8
  9. ASAAR Guest

    On 25 Oct 2006 08:53:29 -0700, Paul Rubin
    <http://> wrote:

    >> rebadged 2300-2500 cells. At present I think Sanyos are tops. I believe
    >> they have a new 2700 called Eneloop that holds its charge better.

    >
    > The Eneloops do hold charge better (shown in tests) but their capacity
    > is only about 2000 mah. The improved charge retention does not come
    > for free.


    Eneloops wouldn't be very good for people that take so many
    pictures that their batteries are frequently recharged. But for
    those that don't, the 2,000 mAh batteries may have a greater
    effective capacity than 2,700 mAh batteries. I wouldn't trust any
    normal 2,700 mAh NiMH batteries that sat in the camera or in a box
    for a month or two after being charged to have retained even 1,500
    mAh. But 2,000 mAh Eneloops could sit that long and probably have
    more than 1,900 mAh remaining.

    Li-Ion batteries still retain a couple of advantages for some
    people, but their greatest one, a much lower self discharge rate
    than NiMH batteries is no more. Not only do Eneloops have a lower
    self discharge rate, but unlike Li-Ion batteries, they won't die if
    they go uncharged for 6 to 12 months.
    ASAAR, Oct 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Mueen Nawaz Guest

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


    I'm somewhat skeptical of the NiMH bashing.

    And I also don't understand why his camera is slowing down. If my NiMH
    are too low on charge, the camera turns off - but it never slows down.

    I suspect the problems people have are with either poor batteries or a
    poor charger.

    With my 2700 mAh batteries, I never ran out in one day's shooting. It
    charges quickly (2 hours max). And it is simply more cost effective than
    Li batteries of the same capacity.

    It pays to buy good NiMH batteries.

    --
    I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
    the wrong answers.


    /\ /\ /\ /
    / \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
    >>>>>><<<<<<

    anl
    Mueen Nawaz, Oct 29, 2006
    #10
  11. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:55:27 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

    > And I also don't understand why his camera is slowing down. If my NiMH
    > are too low on charge, the camera turns off - but it never slows down.


    He must be talking about the slowdown between shots due to having
    to recharge the flash's capacitor. Typical recharge times are about
    5 or 6 seconds after a full power flash with fresh NiMH batteries.
    I've seen several manufacturers recommend recharging the batteries
    when the recharge time slows down to 30 seconds. That's for
    external flashes. With internal flashes, the camera might indicate
    a low battery condition or turn off altogether before the recharge
    time approaches 30 seconds, but it will still slow down with
    continued use.
    ASAAR, Oct 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:55:27 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
    >
    > > And I also don't understand why his camera is slowing down. If my NiMH
    > > are too low on charge, the camera turns off - but it never slows down.

    >
    > He must be talking about the slowdown between shots due to having
    > to recharge the flash's capacitor. Typical recharge times are about
    > 5 or 6 seconds after a full power flash with fresh NiMH batteries.
    > I've seen several manufacturers recommend recharging the batteries
    > when the recharge time slows down to 30 seconds. That's for
    > external flashes. With internal flashes, the camera might indicate
    > a low battery condition or turn off altogether before the recharge
    > time approaches 30 seconds, but it will still slow down with
    > continued use.


    Quite correct, The slowdown is in the cycle time which invariabley
    meant the time for the flash to recharge and be ready to go again. I
    was taking shots as quickly as possible and the flash recharge was
    slower than the save time. I'm unaware if the save time slows, but it
    would take a shed load more testing to determine as the number of shots
    would no doubt increase dramatically if flash was not being used.
    I was trying to get a ball park figure for the relative battery life
    and using the flash seemed reasonable as it enabled the test to be run
    over a more reasonable timescale.
    Using the flash also more accurately mimics my normal useage.
    , Oct 30, 2006
    #12
  13. ASAAR Guest

    On 30 Oct 2006 01:59:59 -0800, wrote:

    > . . . but it would take a shed load more testing to determine as the
    > number of shots would no doubt increase dramatically if flash was
    > not being used.
    > I was trying to get a ball park figure for the relative battery life
    > and using the flash seemed reasonable as it enabled the test to be
    > run over a more reasonable timescale.
    > Using the flash also more accurately mimics my normal useage.


    The best way to test battery performance relative to other cameras
    would be to use the CIPA (Camera & Imaging Products Association)
    standard procedure for measuring digital still camera battery
    consumption. Many camera manufacturers (including Fuji and Canon)
    have adopted this procedure within the last couple of years. One
    significant part of the procedure is that every other picture should
    be taken using the flash at full power.

    You're quite right that the number of shots would dramatically
    increase if the flash isn't used. Some time ago I tested my Fuji
    S5100, trying to follow the CIPA procedure as closely as possible.
    The manual stated that alkaline AA batteries should be good for 200
    shots, and I found that the battery warning came on slightly before
    200 shots, with the camera powering off slightly after 200 shots
    were taken. I then disabled the flash and continued taking
    pictures. About 2 days and an additional 400+ shots later I
    replaced the batteries, even though they weren't completely dead!
    From this I extrapolated (assumed) that if the flash wasn't used at
    all, I'd probably have been able to take more than 800 shots from a
    single set of alkaline batteries. Quite a bit more from NiMH.
    ASAAR, Oct 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Mueen Nawaz wrote:
    >
    > With my 2700 mAh batteries, I never ran out in one day's shooting. It
    > charges quickly (2 hours max). And it is simply more cost effective than
    > Li batteries of the same capacity.
    >
    > It pays to buy good NiMH batteries.


    that may(or may not) be so;however, you must consider all other
    factors.
    A) It is inconvenient to take out and put back into the camera 2
    batteries
    matching + -.
    B) you will always mix up NiMh brands, MAh, etc.
    marking them doesnt help in dark light.
    buying a 10 pack of Alkalines or Lithiums is more convenient as you
    empty
    all of them into your pocket, use them, and throw them away, freeing
    up space.
    Shooting today's NYC marathon, sealed the deal for me.
    I am going either CR-V3 or Lithium.
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Nov 6, 2006
    #14
  15. ASAAR Guest

    On 5 Nov 2006 20:07:23 -0800, Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:

    >> It pays to buy good NiMH batteries.

    >
    > that may(or may not) be so;however, you must consider all other
    > factors.
    > A) It is inconvenient to take out and put back into the camera 2
    > batteries matching + -.


    Oh my. I'd like to see your shoes. I'll bet they don't have
    laces. :)


    > B) you will always mix up NiMh brands, MAh, etc.
    > marking them doesnt help in dark light.


    That's only a problem for moles that aren't very resourceful.


    > buying a 10 pack of Alkalines or Lithiums is more convenient
    > as you empty all of them into your pocket, use them, and throw
    > them away, freeing up space.


    I'll have to translate that, as I think you didn't quite mean what
    you wrote.


    > Shooting today's NYC marathon, sealed the deal for me.
    > I am going either CR-V3 or Lithium.


    Oh no! This town ain't big enough for the both of us. We hopes
    you were just visiting. Yes we does, really.
    ASAAR, Nov 6, 2006
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter Guest

    Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
    > Mueen Nawaz wrote:
    >> With my 2700 mAh batteries, I never ran out in one day's shooting. It
    >> charges quickly (2 hours max). And it is simply more cost effective than
    >> Li batteries of the same capacity.
    >>
    >> It pays to buy good NiMH batteries.

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


    I use a mix of rechargeable (NIMH), and disposable (Lithium). I use the
    NIMH to begin with, and when they go dead, then I use the lithium
    disposables. I can get 50-250 shots from the NIMH batteries, and about
    300 from each set of lithium disposables. This normally serves to power
    my camera for at least a week (which is as long as I like to be away).

    If I were starting in the market now, I would elect to buy a camera
    using either lithium ion batteries with a LONG use life, or to use
    rechargeable lithium batteries, such as the RCRV3 set, and appropriate
    charger. I will be looking into the new 'eneloop' NIMH batteries with
    much better 'self-discharge' rates.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 6, 2006
    #16
  17. Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On 5 Nov 2006 20:07:23 -0800, Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
    >
    >>> It pays to buy good NiMH batteries.

    >> that may(or may not) be so;however, you must consider all other
    >> factors.
    >> A) It is inconvenient to take out and put back into the camera 2
    >> batteries matching + -.

    >
    > Oh my. I'd like to see your shoes. I'll bet they don't have
    > laces. :)
    >
    >
    >> B) you will always mix up NiMh brands, MAh, etc.
    >> marking them doesnt help in dark light.

    >
    > That's only a problem for moles that aren't very resourceful.
    >
    >
    >> buying a 10 pack of Alkalines or Lithiums is more convenient
    >> as you empty all of them into your pocket, use them, and throw
    >> them away, freeing up space.

    >
    > I'll have to translate that, as I think you didn't quite mean what
    > you wrote.
    >
    >
    >> Shooting today's NYC marathon, sealed the deal for me.
    >> I am going either CR-V3 or Lithium.

    >
    > Oh no! This town ain't big enough for the both of us. We hopes
    > you were just visiting. Yes we does, really.
    >

    Dumping batteries, such as lithium and/or NIMH into one's pockets is a
    VERY BAD IDEA. They can warm up rather catastrophically should they
    become in contact with keys, etc. and complete a circuit. The results
    could be rather painful.
    I KNOW!
    Ron Hunter, Nov 6, 2006
    #17
  18. Phil Wheeler Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > Dumping batteries, such as lithium and/or NIMH into one's pockets is a
    > VERY BAD IDEA. They can warm up rather catastrophically should they
    > become in contact with keys, etc. and complete a circuit. The results
    > could be rather painful.
    > I KNOW!


    Next time invest in some ziplock-style sandwich bags.
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 6, 2006
    #18
  19. Mueen Nawaz Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>> A) It is inconvenient to take out and put back into the camera 2
    >>> batteries matching + -.


    Petty complaint. If this is a major concern, good luck with photography.

    >>> B) you will always mix up NiMh brands, MAh, etc.
    >>> marking them doesnt help in dark light.


    For me, I got two sets from the same company when I originally bought
    them. No issues there. Never even needed that second set.

    >>> buying a 10 pack of Alkalines or Lithiums is more convenient
    >>> as you empty all of them into your pocket, use them, and throw
    >>> them away, freeing up space.


    A 10 pack of alkalines is nothing compared to my *single* set of NiMH.

    > Dumping batteries, such as lithium and/or NIMH into one's pockets is a
    > VERY BAD IDEA. They can warm up rather catastrophically should they
    > become in contact with keys, etc. and complete a circuit. The results
    > could be rather painful.
    > I KNOW!


    Quite true. That's why at least from the place I've bought NiMH
    batteries, they always come with a holder.

    As I said, at least for me, none of these has been an issue as I've
    always managed to do a day's shooting with a single set of NiMH batteries.

    --
    "Maybe the universe IS fuzzy." --- Hubble Telescope Scientist


    /\ /\ /\ /
    / \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
    >>>>>><<<<<<

    anl
    Mueen Nawaz, Nov 6, 2006
    #19
  20. Ron Hunter Guest

    Phil Wheeler wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >> Dumping batteries, such as lithium and/or NIMH into one's pockets is a
    >> VERY BAD IDEA. They can warm up rather catastrophically should they
    >> become in contact with keys, etc. and complete a circuit. The results
    >> could be rather painful.
    >> I KNOW!

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

    Now I just dump them into the pocket with my handkerchief. Nothing
    there to complete a circuit with only two batteries...
    But the previous experience was....educational.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 7, 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. Ken F.

    AA or CRV3 Lithium Ion v NiMh

    Ken F., Aug 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    2,165
  2. Top Spin

    Battery life: alkaline v NiMH v Li-Ion

    Top Spin, Dec 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    9,659
  3. John Navas

    RCR-V3 (Rechargeable CR-V3) Li-ion vs NiMH AA

    John Navas, Mar 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,071
    Ron G
    Mar 5, 2004
  4. zxcvar
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    589
    Ron Baird
    Jun 7, 2004
  5. zxcvar
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    882
    Bones
    Dec 2, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page