Re: A610 battery life?

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:36:22 +0000 (UTC), Dave Martindale wrote:

> Fair enought, but you're taking a set of assumptions from the other
> extreme end of the range of users. You are assuming that the person
> currently has no NiMH batteries or charger, and if he did buy them they
> would be used only in the camera (so no other benefit from owning them).
> When all of those are true, then there's no point acquiring NiMH
> rechargeables.

While my assumption did figure in the cost of a charger it's a
reasonable assumption to make. Coming up with projections for every
possible permutation of what kind of equipment is owned would have
made the reply several times longer, would have been far more
tedious to read, and all the information necessary for anyone
already owning a charger to calculate their own costs due to their
unique situation was provided. For many (I won't say "most" but it
might be) purchasers of the A610, they may very well not have a
charger. Or if they have one, they might want to get a better one,
especially if the old one either only charges two cells, or lacks
independent charging circuits. I can also state that based on some
experience, if a pool of NiMH AA batteries is shared between cameras
and other non-camera devices, even if they are kept in sets of 4,
the life of the batteries won't be as good as assumed. Maybe this
won't be true for a small number of people, but it will be true for
most.


> I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the cost of using NiMH in
> cameras is essentially zero. I already have a stock of the cells plus
> several chargers, because of other rather power-hungry devices.
> Because of them, I take a fast charger on trips with me.

Although I also am in your situation, I doubt that the cost is
essentially zero. If I'm wrong, then the chances are reasonably
high that most of your NiMH cells have capacities ranging from 1800
to 2100mah. If not, you may be buying NiMH batteries more
frequently than "essentially zero" cost would indicate. I also have
a good number of chargers, more than a dozen, and at least 4 are
fast chargers (from 30 to 60 minutes). I used to take one with me
on trips. Even bought a duplicate of one of them because it came
with a free zippered nylon travel case, car adapter and set of
batteries. I've stopped doing that as my equipment (probably unlike
yours) no longer goes through batteries as fast as it used to. When
I take a smart charger on trips now, it's a very small one. Slow,
but adequate, that doesn't even require a wall wart. For my last
excursion (Thanksgiving, lasting 3 days) I had 4 or 5 AA using
devices, and only brought along a case holding 4 NiMH backups and 4
alkalines. Unlike past trips, none of the spares were needed.


> There's a functional difference too: the flash usually recycles faster
> when the camera is powered by rechargeables instead of alkalines.

I haven't noticed a big difference in charge time. It might be
worse with other cameras, but for my Fuji and probably for the A610,
I suspect that unlike with dedicated flashes that can *really* slow
down as the battery becomes exhausted, until these cameras consider
the batteries to be exhausted the voltage remains high enough to
charge the flash fairly quickly. As I've mentioned before, when
using the flash with alkalines, when the batteries are so exhausted
that the camera shuts off when trying to recharge the flash, the
batteries still have enough energy to take more than 400 more shots
if the flash is no longer used. And that's with either the EVF or
LCD enabled. You'll note that I suggested not that all people using
all P&S cameras should or could use alkalines. Only those using one
of the very efficient new cameras, and only if they take a
relatively small number of shots per year.


> I agree that rechargeables aren't for everyone. But just as someone who
> shoots 10000 frames a year is out on one tail of the distribution of
> photographers, the guy who shoots only 450 frames/year is close to the
> other tail. Typical is somewhere in between.

Many will fall between those extremes, and I clearly indicated
that NiMH AAs were the better choice for some if not many. But I
don't think that those shooting 450 frames/year are nearly as close
to the extreme end as those shooting 10,000. Maybe you don't see
that many people shooting 450 or fewer shots per year (equivalent to
18 rolls), but I do. And most of those shooting 10,000 frames per
year (equiv. to 400 rolls, or 280 for 36 exp. rolls) are probably
not doing it with P&S cameras that uses AA batteries. I'll bet
those guys have yearly operating costs (factor in either lab work or
printers, paper, ink, insurance, etc.) high enough to make the cost
of batteries of any kind almost too trivial to notice. :)

If you thought I was recommending alkalines as being better than
NiMH batteries, no. Wasn't doing that. Most people in this
newsgroup probably think the opposite, that NiMH is always
preferable. I've just tried to show two things. First, that it
varies, and either could be the better choice. And second, that for
owners of new cameras such as the A610, battery requirements are far
lower than most people might have realized, so whatever the camera
owner prefers, it's not nearly as big a concern as it might have
been a couple of years ago. If the "wrong" type is chosen, it won't
take nearly as big a bite out of your wallet as it used to. One
might think that as far as digital cameras are concerned, we may be
entering a new "golden age".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Camera zaps NiMH batteries
    ... Alkalines run about 1.6v per cell when fresh, NiMHs up to about 1.25-1.3v per ... NiMH batteries are exhausted, which is *very* close to the 1.0 volt ... Under the load imposed by cameras, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: NiCd and NiMH charging (and Dewalt)
    ... chargers when they introduced NiMH batteries. ... NiMH batteries are more touchy about charging than NiCd batteries. ... the Lacrosse BC700 battery charger does not distinguish NiCd and NiMH. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: IC3 rechargeable batteries
    ... For the NiMH batteries ... > different digital cameras. ... would be a waste of time and batteries to use the included alkaline ... shots for alkalines and 400 for NiMH. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Dpreview selector: AA batteries?
    ... Unless LiIon can supply more current than NiMH, ... especially when compared with cameras that only use 2 AA ... NiMH cells. ... But lithium batteries ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: NiMH cell voltage
    ... 1.29v My Sony came with Nimh, Get new batteries or charger. ... hydride cell are very similar to those of the nickelcadmium ...
    (rec.photo.digital)