 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / January 2007Olympus SP-550 UZ: 18x ultra zoom
This look like it will be a good one??? Not yet in UK but anyone elsewhere got one or know the price range? Ken Only 7 megapixels - that is a let down. Should be at least 8, perhaps 10 or even 12. > This look like it will be a good one??? > > Not yet in UK but anyone elsewhere got one or know the price > range? > Ken I might agree with 8 mp, but cramming 12 mp on a tiny sensor the size of the one on that camera would probably result in some quality issues. I think Oly is to be applauded for not getting into the megapixel race, but rather keeping the resolution proportionate to the sensor size and sacrificing "throw weight" for image quality.  SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Only 7 megapixels - that is a let down. Should be at least 8, perhaps 10 > or even 12. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> range? >> Ken My needs are for a camera with wide angle (28mm) which I have with my Olympus 5060 but missing a better zoom when I need to get further back! So will keep an eye on it as the 7 megapixels is fine for my needs. Ken >I might agree with 8 mp, but cramming 12 mp on a tiny sensor the size of >the one on that camera would probably result in some quality issues. I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> range? >>> Ken > My needs are for a camera with wide angle (28mm) which I have with my > Olympus 5060 but missing a better zoom when I need to get further back! So > will keep an eye on it as the 7 megapixels is fine for my needs. If you don't need live preview you could get an E400 with the double lens kit. You'd cover the 28-300mm range and still have a very compact package. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/ >> My needs are for a camera with wide angle (28mm) which I have with my >> Olympus 5060 but missing a better zoom when I need to get further back! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lens kit. You'd cover the 28-300mm range and still have a very compact > package. I'll take a look at it but in my work I haven't time to change lenses. Ken > > My needs are for a camera with wide angle (28mm) which I have with my > > Olympus 5060 but missing a better zoom when I need to get further back! So [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lens kit. You'd cover the 28-300mm range and still have a very compact > package. Except there is no image stabalization in the E-400, and you have to change lenses. SignatureMichael Meissner email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org http://www.the-meissners.org > Only 7 megapixels - that is a let down. Should be at least 8, > perhaps 10 or even 12. 5 or 6MP would be a better match for the sensor size. David >> Only 7 megapixels - that is a let down. Should be at least 8, >> perhaps 10 or even 12. > > 5 or 6MP would be a better match for the sensor size. > > David The Canon A640 does 10mp on its sensor. Is that not a good match either? >>> Only 7 megapixels - that is a let down. Should be at least 8, >>> perhaps 10 or even 12. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The Canon A640 does 10mp on its sensor. Is that not a good match > either? I suspect that for the great majority of uses, a 5MP or 6MP sensor would be a better compromise there as well. Of course, if your are regularly printing at greater than A4 size (210 x 297mm) you may prefer more pixels. Note that Nikon in its most recent DSLR has opted for a quality 6MP sensor rather than following the marketing droids "more MP is better". David >> 5 or 6MP would be a better match for the sensor size. >> >> David > > The Canon A640 does 10mp on its sensor. Is that not a good match > either? If 7mp is too many pixels for the SP-550's 1/2.5" sensor, then 10mp is also too many for the A640's larger 1/1.8" sensor. The A640 doesn't cram the pixels quite as tightly, but it's pretty close, with less than a 10% difference. If you want to work it out for yourself, dpreview gives these dimensions for the sensors, including for comparison APS-C, which is roughly comparable to the size of most DSLR sensors: > 1/2.5" == 5.760mm x 4.290mm == 24.71 sq.mm > 1/1.8" == 7.176mm x 5.319mm == 38.17 sq.mm > 1.8" (APS-C) == 23.7mm x 15.7mm == 372 sq.mm Comparing the 10mp A640 with the 7mp A620, the increased number of pixels doesn't translate to the same increase in resolution. The horizontal and vertical absolute resolution increased from 1,550 and 1,600 LPH to 1,775 and 1,850 LPH. This is very close to what you'd expect from an increase of 7mp to 8mp. If the A640's resolution increased in proportion to its 10 mp, it would have achieved 2,214 (hor) and 2,286 (vert) LPH. Along with its very modest improvement over the A620, the A640 is probably a bit noisier at the high ISOs. (see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona640/page15.asp ) How does my old Fuji S5100 with its small 1/2.5" 4mp compare? According to dpreview, absolute resolution is 1,200 and 1,250 LPH. Not too bad, and the diminishing returns gotten from the higher mp count sensors is apparent. If the S5100's sensor was enlarged in its physical dimensions to provide an increase from 4mp to 7mp and 10mp (assuming a perfect lens to match), its resolution would increase to 2,100 and 2,188 LPH (7mp) and 3,000 and 3,125 LPH (10mp). The A620 (which I also own) and the A640 don't come close to matching these resolutions. In other words, as most people here have long recognized, the megapixel race is mainly a numbers game devised by the camera manufacturers' marketing departments. It helps sell cameras, but doesn't help make good purchasing decisions. > This look like it will be a good one??? > > Not yet in UK but anyone elsewhere got one or know the price range? > > Ken Now if they'd scrap the stupid xd cards and get with the rest of the world. > > This look like it will be a good one??? > > > Not yet in UK but anyone elsewhere got one or know the price range? > > > KenNow if they'd scrap the stupid xd cards and get with the rest of the world. I agree whole-heartedly - what a waste. Both Fuji and Olympus are coming out with some very interesting and innovative cameras, but they're hobbled by the stupid cards. This new Oly camera looks really good; I too have an Oly C-5060 that I'd like to replace with a "wide to long-zoom" for lightweight general use. I broke down and bought a Fuji F10 a while ago, and was pleasantly surprised to find that an xD card wasn't twice the price of other formats anymore; more like 10% higher - and a lot less than a Sony memory stick. Still, I feel like I'm being bent over the cash-register when I think about buying another. >> > This look like it will be a good one??? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and a lot less than a Sony memory stick. Still, I feel like I'm being > bent over the cash-register when I think about buying another. I recently bought a Kodak P850 refurb from the kodak online store. 12x zoom, IS, only 5.1mp, SD card, and 237k EVF - much better than the 110k EVF on most competing brands. I'm quite pleased with it. Sounds great. I hope you are very happy with it. Is Kodak a good quality Digital Camera? I had been thinking top tier like Nikon, Olympus, etc. and had not considered Kodak in terms of cameras. Do they compare well? > I recently bought a Kodak P850 refurb from the kodak online > store. 12x zoom, IS, only 5.1mp, SD card, and 237k EVF - much > better than the 110k EVF on most competing brands. I'm quite > pleased with it. > Sounds great. I hope you are very happy with it. > > Is Kodak a good quality Digital Camera? I had been thinking top > tier like Nikon, Olympus, etc. and had not considered Kodak in > terms of cameras. Do they compare well? YMMV - we've had two Kodak digital cameras, one Nikon and one Minolta. I don't find a lot of fault with any of them. I think they are fine, some folks seem to have a problem. >> I recently bought a Kodak P850 refurb from the kodak online >> store. 12x zoom, IS, only 5.1mp, SD card, and 237k EVF - much >> better than the 110k EVF on most competing brands. I'm quite >> pleased with it. > Sounds great. I hope you are very happy with it. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> better than the 110k EVF on most competing brands. I'm quite >> pleased with it. For me the SP-550 UZ really has some similarities with Kodak, not the P-Series but the Z- superzoom series. The lens goes from 28 - 504 mm equivalent with a 1/2.5" Sensor. The Samsung Pro815 covers 28-420 mm with a 1/ 2/3" sensor. If you you use a Panasonic with the 0,7 WA - converter lens you have a range 24.5 - 420, if you add the 1.7 tele conversion lens you have 24.5 - 710 mm with IS (you can select the conversion lens in the firmware) and a 1/1.8" sensor. Exclusive use of xD Picture cards, the missing external hot shoe or external flash connector, and the need for an extra adaptor tube to use filters or conversion lenses are signs that the new camera is aimed at the same group of users as the Kodak Z - series. It will take pictures most people are happy with, but the tiny sensor will cause problems under low light conditions. It does reduce the amount and weight of necessary glass and mechanics and finally manufacturing cost, if it is priced in the mass market range it might be successful. I doubt that many "more serious" amateurs will opt for it. It is far removed from the old E - series, but there is of course the DSLR range from Olympus which is incidentally using Li-Ion batteries. > > ray wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > tier like Nikon, Olympus, etc. and had not considered Kodak in > terms of cameras. Do they compare well? Hello, Paul: Yeah, I'm sure that the hordes of outsourced, point-&-shoot digicams from "Nikon, Olympus, etc.," are so much better than Kodak's own outsourced products. :-J Seriously, the vast majority of today's cameras are truly made by OEM outfits, other than the big-name photographic equipment manufacturers, themselves. (And, let's face it, Kodak has been the biggest of those names, traditionally.) Hence, the real point is, there's little difference between the main players in the current digital marketplace...and Kodak stacks up, very competitively, against any of them. Cordially, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> "John Turco" > Seriously, the vast majority of today's cameras are truly made by OEM > outfits, other than the big-name photographic equipment manufacturers, > themselves. (And, let's face it, Kodak has been the biggest of those > names, traditionally.) Well, according to some publications, believe or not, the sensor used in the Nikon D80 made by Sony and used by Sony as well in its own model, don't remember which one. Just D. > "John Turco" > > Seriously, the vast majority of today's cameras are truly made by OEM [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just D. Hello, Just D: That's hardly a revelation. <g> Sony is widely known to be the industry's top provider of "small" sensors (i.e., the type used in P&S digicams), and also some of the larger ones, contained in DSLR's. However, even Sony doesn't make the whole cameras, either for itself or other companies. That gritty job is mainly handled by a certain number of OEM firms, such as Sanyo and Flextronics, among others. Cordially, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> So even Olympus outsources like crazy now? Man, back in the day, when I got the C5050 Oly, I thought it was heads above most of the rest of the field. I'd hate to think they no longer care about quality. Anyways, thanks very much. I appreciate the post > Hello, Paul: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the main players in the current digital marketplace...and > Kodak stacks up, very competitively, against any of them. > > Hello, Paul: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So even Olympus outsources like crazy now? Hello, Paul: It's a fact of modern life, alas. The world's industrial base has been constantly shifting, and not only away from the United States and Europe. Even Japan has felt the dour effects of rising labor costs, and like the Western nations, has moved much of its manufacturing muscle to Southeast Asia, China, and the Pacific Rim. > Man, back in the day, when I got the C5050 Oly, I thought it was > heads above most of the rest of the field. Well, I own six Kodak digicams, and they're all made in either Japan, or China. The build quality is the same (i.e., quite high), in each case, pun intended. > I'd hate to think they no longer care about quality. Then, don't think that. <g> > Anyways, thanks very much. I appreciate the post No problem! Cordially, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> > Now if they'd scrap the stupid xd cards and get with the rest of the world. I'd say it's highly irrelevant what card format they use. Cards are cheap nowadays and it's very likely you won't reuse the cards you buy today with your next camera. Besides, what is the rest of the world - CF, SD or what else? CF sucks by the way. I bought a USB card reader and cannot insert anymore the CF card because one of the pins got bent. Why on earth does a memory card have to have so many pins? SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/ > I'd say it's highly irrelevant what card format they use. Cards are > cheap nowadays Yes, even XD cards are pretty cheap now (not as cheap as SD, but a lot better than in the past. Although I love the 28mm wide end, the big factor for me so far with this camera is the EVF (the factor which stopped me buying the similarly compact Canon S3). The preview at http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml has no details but says the EVF is ok. Hard to tell much from that though. :-) Andrew McP >> I'd say it's highly irrelevant what card format they use. >> Cards are cheap nowadays [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > has no details but says the EVF is ok. Hard to tell much from > that though. :-) I have an XD card for my Oly C5050, but was happy that it came with a Compact Flash slot, which I had thought would be the dominant format, but it looks like SD cards have taken over completely. I ended up not getting the Canon S3 because of the lower pixel resolution and also the EVF. I opted to get the Canon A640 instead, which is SD based. I really do prefer the SD format to the XD card. XD is just too small for me physically. I might lose it if I took it out and swapped it every now and then. I wonder if ANY super-zooms are going to have a standard Optical Viewfinder? I also wonder when they will get to 8 or 10 megapixels to make it worth the step up from my Oly C5050. [] > I wonder if ANY super-zooms are going to have a standard Optical > Viewfinder? I also wonder when they will get to 8 or 10 > megapixels to make it worth the step up from my Oly C5050. Unlikely, as the cost, size and weight of the viewfinder lens would be too high. The EVF is already a through-the-lens viewfinder, so can provide precise framing and lack of parallax. All it needs is more resolution, and Minolta have already shown that is possible with their VGA-resolution finder for the Minolta A2. David >> I wonder if ANY super-zooms are going to have a standard >> Optical Viewfinder? I also wonder when they will get to 8 or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > more resolution, and Minolta have already shown that is > possible with their VGA-resolution finder for the Minolta A2. Isn't Minolta leaving the market though? I have a very hard time using EVF's. I have poor eyesite and cannot seem to view LCD's nearly as well as others, but have no trouble with optical viewfinders by comparison. I am baffled as to why they have not upped the Megapixels to at least 8mp. >>> I wonder if ANY super-zooms are going to have a standard >>> Optical Viewfinder? I also wonder when they will get to 8 or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Isn't Minolta leaving the market though? Indeed - they only used that viewfinder in one camera. Too expensive, perhaps? > I have a very hard time using EVF's. I have poor eyesite and > cannot seem to view LCD's nearly as well as others, but have no > trouble with optical viewfinders by comparison. > > I am baffled as to why they have not upped the Megapixels to at > least 8mp. Of course, you need to use what best suits you. The EVF should offer at least VGA resolution, and with the chance to present a larger, brighter image, I am surprised a high-resolution EVF doesn't suit you. It has the potential to be bigger and brighter than the viewfinder in a DSLR, which can be limited by the small aperture lenses frequently used. The typical DSLR viewfinder no longer offers the focussing aids for accurate manual focussing, although it will offer depth-of-field preview (at even more reduction in brightness). For what applications do you need 8MP? David > For what applications do you need 8MP? More detail in sports shots while at a Baseball game in Safeco field is one reason. :) I have a 5mp Oly C5050 and a 10mp Canon A640. All I lack is an 8 or 10mp super zoom and I can make large-format digital prints for relatives, buds, etc. The 10mp images I take with the Canon are noticeably more detailed than the Oly and 8x10's look much better when made from the 10mp originals, even up close, which is what happens with sports photos - they are often viewed close. >> For what applications do you need 8MP? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the 10mp originals, even up close, which is what happens with > sports photos - they are often viewed close. It's a little old now, and a little big and heavy for my liking, but a Nikon 8800 has: - 2/3-inch sensor (8.8 x 6.6 mm) - 8MP - image stabilisation - 35 - 350mm (eq) range http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/ I didn't like the relative small aperture an maximum zoom. Plus, of course, all the Panasonic cameras in that range, including the FZ20 with its f/2.8 constant aperture Leica lens covering 36 - 432mm (eq.). David > [] >> I wonder if ANY super-zooms are going to have a standard Optical [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > David You'll also find that Kodak's EVFs have 237k pixels whereas most others have only 110k - it makes a huge difference. > but it looks like SD cards have taken over > completely. Have they? I used to think that CF is the dominant format. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/ Same here. But suddenly, so many of the new cameras seem to use SD, and Digital Video Recorders even come with 'em now. I was confident Compact Flash would have won, but I guess its size makes it less desireable. >> but it looks like SD cards have taken over >> completely. > > Have they? I used to think that CF is the dominant format. > Same here. But suddenly, so many of the new cameras seem to use > SD, and Digital Video Recorders even come with 'em now. I was > confident Compact Flash would have won, but I guess its size > makes it less desireable. That's good news then, because CF has a horrible mechanical interface with all those pins. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/ >> Now if they'd scrap the stupid xd cards and get with the rest of the world. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cannot insert anymore the CF card because one of the pins got bent. Why > on earth does a memory card have to have so many pins? I guess it's no problem at all if you don't mind paying twice as much for every card you get - I do. > I guess it's no problem at all if you don't mind paying twice as much for > every card you get - I do. The CF card is of good quality, it's the card reader whose slot has a twisted pin now. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/ > This look like it will be a good one??? > > Not yet in UK but anyone elsewhere got one or know the price range? > > Ken Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming it will even focus. No need to be so pessimistic. >> This look like it will be a good one??? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming > it will even focus. >> Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming >> it will even focus. > > No need to be so pessimistic. No need to be so polite. That was not a pessimistic statement. It was an intentionally and Richly ignorant, stupid statement. Well, ya get more bees with honey... lol Just trying to be civil. :) >>> Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming >>> it will even focus. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > statement. It was an intentionally and Richly ignorant, stupid > statement. >> No need to be so polite. > . . . > > Well, ya get more bees with honey... lol > > Just trying to be civil. :) Good policy in general, but not if it also attracts the wrong types. You should be daubing yourself not with honey but with Troll-Begone. It's non-greasy and is available over-the-counter in 2 oz. and 5 oz. squeeze tubes. :) > No need to be so pessimistic. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming > > it will even focus. Oh? Look at an expensive 15x zoom, the Samsung 815. Major issues with focusing on the long end. Why will some crackerjack toy be better? >> This look like it will be a good one??? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Lets see what this "toy's" long end shots are like. Assuming it will > even focus. Hi... There's three samples (wide, medium, and real tight here... about a third way down the page. Hover your mouse over the description under the picture. http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml Take care. Ken [] > Hi... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ken If those images are to be believed, the 504mm zoom produces images of twice the linear dimension of the 432mm zoom images. What credibility can you give the rest of the review with glaring errors like that? David >> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml > . . . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What credibility can you give the rest of the review with glaring errors > like that? DCResource has plenty of credibility. You're quibbling over a typo that shouldn't have gotten by you unless you were looking to find fault with something, either the review (not a review actually, but a 'first look') or the camera. If the SP550UZ's 18x zoom has an equivalent focal length of 504mm, the middle label (typical max on ultra zooms) can't be 432mm. The typical ultrazoom range is more like 10x, maybe 12x, and if you work out the approximate, expected focal lengths (504 x 10/18, 504 x 12/18) you get 280mm and 336mm, which are about 1/2 the linear dimension, and what you expected. Was this quibble at its root fueled by Olympus finally offering more than Panasonic? And the 550UZ don't need no stinking Li-Ion batteries. <g> >>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/sp550uz-review/index.shtml >> . . . [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > more than Panasonic? And the 550UZ don't need no stinking Li-Ion > batteries. <g> Not at all. Attention was drawn to the three images, and it was immediately obvious that they were flawed. They were supposed to be illustrating a fundamental point about the camera - its extended zoom range - but as displayed the images give the false impression that the zoom was twice as great as with competing models. The middle image isn't even directly from the camera, but from "Photoshop magic". Surely more care should have been taken with this? I don't see that an f/4.5 lens is "more" than the f/2.8 lens of the Panasonic FZ20, but we haven't see side-by-side images. Although the wide-angle is nice, the use of four AA cells rather than a single package Li-ion battery, and the use of xD memory cards are both fairly negative factors for me. Cheers, David > Not at all. Attention was drawn to the three images, and it was > immediately obvious that they were flawed. They were supposed to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > even directly from the camera, but from "Photoshop magic". Surely more > care should have been taken with this? You're avoiding the main point, which was that you transformed an innocent mistake (a typo, there was no 432mm lens) into something casting doubt on DCResource's credibility. As you noted, the nearly 2 to 1 difference in the image magnifications couldn't be attributed to a 432mm vs 504mm lens. Is there a single other camera that your are aware of having a lens with close enough to the Olympus's 18x range that might have made 432mm seem reasonable? None that I'm aware of. By your own standard, since you also made a mistake in interpreting that page's results, what credibility can we give to any of your other replies? > What credibility can you give the rest of the review > with glaring errors like that? One of my points is that the mistake was so glaring, and the reason so obvious, that you should have caught it. But just because you made that mistake doesn't mean that everything else that you say is without credibility. My other point is that you went too far, saying that the rest of the review deserves no credibility because of one mistake. You probably noticed that I mentioned Panasonic in my last reply. I'll mention them again, because it's hard to avoid thinking that if the review/first-look was of new Panasonic camera and the same mistake was made, you'd have given DCResource a lot more slack. Most people have at least some favorable bias towards some brands, usually the cameras that they own, and that's both understandable and not a bad thing. Your bias, seen over a couple of years is far greater, almost extreme (I'm not even sure that the qualifier "almost" is needed), and as I indicated, may have fueled what appears to me to be an excessive, knee-jerk response. Yes, I agree that it would have been better if more care was taken in that "first look", but the mistake is no big thing, clearly wasn't intentional, and if you need only a single mistake to write off the credibility of any reviewer, no reviewer will meet your standard. None of them are perfect. One of my most recent replies criticized DPReview's excessive praise of the G7's "excellent" resolution. But I still find that DPReview's reviews and opinions have a lot of credibility, even though that "flawed" opinion of the G7 can't even be excused by it being mistake created by a typo. [] > You're avoiding the main point, which was that you transformed an > innocent mistake (a typo, there was no 432mm lens) into something > casting doubt on DCResource's credibility. As you noted, the nearly > 2 to 1 difference in the image magnifications couldn't be attributed > to a 432mm vs 504mm lens. I'm simply making the point that something so fundamental should have been checked more carefully. It was more than just a "typo" - it was an incorrect image which leads to the possibility of incorrect conclusions being drawn by the reader. Were it just a typo, no problem. However, the reviewer himself has had to pay extra attention to the part involving those images as evidenced by his comments about "Photoshop magic" for the middle image. I hope this is soon corrected, and I look forward to seeing comparative images from this and other cameras. >> What credibility can you give the rest of the review >> with glaring errors like that? I agree that was a little strong, but it was my immediate reaction to seeing such a glaring error in what was supposed to be a core part of the "first look". I am sorry that you don't like my references to cameras I own, but owning and using a camera is, I feel, a good starting point to recommend to someone whether it may meet their needs. It is that experience which make me prefer single Li-ion batteries over multiple AA cells, for example. I hope you are equally critical of those who simply regurgitate press releases with no direct hands-on experience of the kit involved. Cheers, David >> You're avoiding the main point, which was that you transformed an >> innocent mistake (a typo, there was no 432mm lens) into something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > incorrect image which leads to the possibility of incorrect conclusions > being drawn by the reader. After all this you still don't get it? The image does *not* appear to be incorrect. As we both have noted, it is approximately the same magnification one would expect most of the other superzooms / ultrazooms to have, which is about the 2 to 1 difference that you estimated. Is the ratio of 18x to 10x not close to 2 to 1? The "typo" is in the 432mm label used for the image. > I am sorry that you don't like my references to cameras I own, > but owning and using a camera is, I feel, a good starting point > to recommend to someone whether it may meet their needs. It > is that experience which make me prefer single Li-ion batteries > over multiple AA cells, for example. I don't dislike most of your references to Panasonic cameras (and for the record, I think you've referred to more than the models you own). It's just that you go *waaaay* beyond simple fandon, but aggressively look for ways to promote them. I recall some of the hyperbolic statements you've made criticizing AA batteries, and these days when cameras are so efficient that a camera using 2 or 4 AA batteries can often last for several days of shooting before needing to be swapped for a fresh set, your horror stories of juggling 8 to 12 of the round cells in the field, all yearning to roll away in different directions is just not realistic. That doesn't mean that you don't have good reasons to prefer Li-Ion batteries. But I've noticed that you go to such great lengths to promote your preferences that it's often hard to take you seriously. I've taken many pictures with the same set of AA cells in my Fuji over the last month and they aren't close to needing to be recharged. In fact, now that I'm using Eneloop type batteries, I don't even have to worry about them running down just by leaving them in the camera for a couple of months, since Sanyo's Eneloops (and RayOVac's Hybrids, and similar NiMH batteries sold under Radio Shack's label and others) have *much* lower self discharge rates than Li-Ion batteries. Try keeping an Li-Ion battery in a camera for 2 years without recharging it to see what happens. There's a good chance that before you've gotten to the halfway point the battery will be dead and won't be able to take a charge any more, and replacements are not nearly as inexpensive or easy to find. > I hope you are equally critical of those who simply regurgitate press > releases with no direct hands-on experience of the kit involved. If you search for reviews using google, most of the hits will be links to press release mills. I haven't criticized them because I ignore them, and don't see any mention of them in the newsgroup other than perhaps some occasional spam which others are quick to shred. Despite owning and liking my Fuji, I'm probably one of the most outspoken critics of fanboy kinga, or haven't you noticed? > these days when cameras are so efficient that a camera using 2 or 4 > AA batteries can often last for several days of shooting before > needing to be swapped for a fresh set, your horror stories of > juggling 8 to 12 of the round cells in the field, all yearning to > roll away in different directions is just not realistic. I didn't understand that one either. The Nikon F3's MD4 motor drive uses eight AA's and they're in a holder (MS-3) that you can swap as easily as you can swap a one-piece lithium battery. I think the F2's motor may have used ten AA's in a similar arrangement but I never used one. The D200's battery grip (six AA's) also uses a holder. I know of some four-AA cameras that use loose cells but that's a manageable number, and some other 4-cell cameras use holders too. Here's the 4AA holder for the Nikon F100: http://www.adorama.com/NKMS12.html Here's the 8AA holder for the F6: http://www.adorama.com/NKMS40.html etc. You can buy as many as you want, semi-permanently load them with rechargeable AA's, and swap them around like you would swap lithium packs. Even with a full load of Eneloops the holders and AA's together are cheaper than the comparable lithium packs. And when the rechargeable AA's get worn out, you can easily replace them. It looks like the MS-3 (the 8AA holder for the almost 30 year old MD4) is no longer available new (B&H lists it as backordered) but they're available on fleabay and you don't have to worry about whether the cells hold a charge. By contrast it looks like the proprietary MN-2 nicad pack originally made for the MD4 is extinct. Thank heavens for AA's. >> these days when cameras are so efficient that a camera using 2 or 4 >> AA batteries can often last for several days of shooting before [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of some four-AA cameras that use loose cells but that's a manageable > number, and some other 4-cell cameras use holders too. The cameras I have used had the AA cells on their own, not in a carrier, so changing batteries involved having four fresh and four used cells in near proximity at the same time. The cylindrical shape encouraged the cells to roll all over the shop. As you observe, a single battery package is far easier to handle. David >>> You're avoiding the main point, which was that you transformed an >>> innocent mistake (a typo, there was no 432mm lens) into something [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > estimated. Is the ratio of 18x to 10x not close to 2 to 1? The > "typo" is in the 432mm label used for the image. The image is /not/ representative of what the reviewer is trying to say: - most cameras have a tele zoom limit of 432mm and their image looks like this. - but the reviewed camera has a 504mm zoom, which make the image bigger, like this. and then presents the 504mm image as about twice the linear size of the 432mm image. That's the way I read it, not a typo but an incorrect image. Sorry if I'm reading it wrong. Cheers, David [] > I don't dislike most of your references to Panasonic cameras (and > for the record, I think you've referred to more than the models you [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > shred. Despite owning and liking my Fuji, I'm probably one of the > most outspoken critics of fanboy kinga, or haven't you noticed? I'm delighted to hear that AA batteries, and camera power drain, are such as to allow this today. My experience is based on earlier models, and drove me away from the 4 x AA format. I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be launched and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom Li-ion cells is higher than it should be. David >> If you search for reviews using google, most of the hits will be >> links to press release mills. I haven't criticized them because I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as to allow this today. My experience is based on earlier models, and > drove me away from the 4 x AA format. You mean that you just found out? These very efficient cameras have been available from Canon and Fuji for at least a couple of years. Other manufacturers too, including Kodak, but I don't know if they've been available as long as the ones from Canon and Fuji. You don't recall the many accounts I've told of the results I got when I first tested the Fuji S5100 (early 2005) and got over 600 shots from a set of alkaline batteries? This included the CIPA test for the first 220 shots or so, which required full powered flash for 50% of the shots and use of the LCD instead of an optical viewfinder. A good number of Canon A610/A620 owners spoke of taking many shots over many months, and still not needing to replace the first set of alkaline batteries they installed. Your experience with earlier cameras using alkaline or NiMH AA batteries is valid, some of them had truly atrocious battery life. But eventually that changed, and these days the only edge Li-Ion batteries have is a slight saving of weight. Even for use in cold weather, AA lithium batteries are usable at temperatures well below the point where Li-Ion batteries chill out. Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no idea two years ago that there were very efficient, battery-frugal cameras available and include myself in that group. But for the last 18 months, surely for the last year, it would be hard for this to have escaped the notice of any regular rpd newsgroupies. > I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be > launched and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom > Li-ion cells is higher than it should be. A sentiment that I share and have stated several times. My cell phone works very well and I'd like to be able to use it for at least another 10 years. But it's being replaced by a new model, and despite costing far more than the a new camera+battery+charger, new replacement batteries are unavailable from the cell phone provider. I might be able to purchase one directly from Nokia, but their battery prices are even higher. The original, full list price that I paid for the phone was $59.95. The batteries last about 18 months, and the last time I checked, Nokia sold them for $50. Cell phones are the modern equivalent of razors. The profit is in selling blades, service plans and (if phones aren't swapped regularly for new models) batteries. Some of the smallest cell phones do need very slim Li-Ion batteries, but most of the ones I see people using are quite a bit larger than mine, and could easily hold 2 AA or 3 AAA cells. I'm sure that there would be a good sized market for phones that could use standard NiMH batteries, but it won't happen, because selling cell phones with built-in obsolescence is far more important than keeping their sizes as small as possible. >> I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be >> launched and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom >> Li-ion cells is higher than it should be. You are right, just check for a "compatible" Li-ion battery on eBay. It is very likely that you find a compatible one there. In case you decide for the cheapest models, buy a fire extinguisher as well, they might have those Sony cells. [] > Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I > find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no > idea two years ago that there were very efficient, battery-frugal > cameras available and include myself in that group. But for the > last 18 months, surely for the last year, it would be hard for this > to have escaped the notice of any regular rpd newsgroupies. Battery life is only one aspect, though. My major complaint has always been the four separate AA cells versus the single Li-ion battery. The single unit is far more convenient to use both in the field and when recharging, and it is less likely to suffer from the issues of individual cells failing. The relatively short shelf life is the drawback. Cheers, David >> Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I >> find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Battery life is only one aspect, though. My major complaint has always > been the four separate AA cells versus the single Li-ion battery. Sheesh. Off you go into new directions. I'm well aware that you've never quite got along with AA cells. I brought that up, didn't I? Whether you like or dislike AA cells has no bearing on what I was wondering, which was how the extremely long battery life of AA cells could have escaped your notice for so long. This was the aspect I'd have expected you to comment on, even if there are a dozen other aspects of AA vs Li-Ion batteries that you might wish to delve into next. You might as well have said "Battery life is only one aspect, though. One which I will now deftly sidestep." You may not recall them, BTW, but some of your previous reasons for not liking AA cells are no longer valid, or perhaps I should say that they never were particularly valid, but now should be of practically no concern. Do you remember what they were? >>> Back to my first sentence above. Did you really just find out? I >>> find it quite plausible that you and almost everyone else had no [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that they never were particularly valid, but now should be of > practically no concern. Do you remember what they were? Yes, I have been aware that the capacity of AA NiMH cells has been increasing for some time, but I've not had any reason to check how well the claimed 2500mAh or 2700mAh capacities actually stand up in practice. My highest capacity AA cells are 2100mAh so, yes, there has been a useful increase since then. In-camera life hasn't really been an issue with the current cameras - on battery in the camera and one space just in case have kept me going these last two or three years. Occasionally, I need the second battery, but carrying it isn't an issue. On some short trips away I don't even take the charger. I am never sure how much credence to give to battery life measurements - at least in as far as how much they relate to real use. Probably the comparitive tests such as those by DP Review (or whatever) should give a useful comparison between cameras, but just because they say "300 shots" doesn't mean that you will get 300 shots. I would need experience using a camera in the field before I felt happy not having spare batteries with me. Of course, as technology advances, the factors affecting a decision will change, so it doesn't surprise me that the outcome of the decision might change as well. Sorry, but I don't have a computer memory, so I can't recall precisely what I said some time ago, and I think that's a good thing to be honest! We should move on. Cheers, David > Yes, I have been aware that the capacity of AA NiMH cells has been > increasing for some time, but I've not had any reason to check how well > the claimed 2500mAh or 2700mAh capacities actually stand up in practice. > My highest capacity AA cells are 2100mAh so, yes, there has been a useful > increase since then. Wow, you're a tough nut to crack. The increase in NiMH capacity is *not* what I was talking about, and the way you deftly parry every attempt to get you to address what I'm talking about seems to indicate that it's intentional on your part, as if you've had special training in the National School for Spin. The change from the extremely poor performance of cameras that used AA batteries several years ago (whether alkaline or NiMH) to the excellent performance that they get today could in no way be attributed to any increase in battery capacity. In fact, alkaline battery capacity is relatively unchanged. The real increases have been with the NiMH batteries. In the last three or four years NiMH battery capacity may have increased by roughly 40%. Over that same period, it has been the cameras, not the batteries that have improved tremendously, and it has amounted to increases of many hundreds of percent, perhaps more than 1000% in the number of shots that can now be taken. Several years ago it wasn't unusual to hear of cameras that couldn't take more than a couple dozen shots before the batteries would need to be recharged. Two years ago some Canon and Fuji cameras were able to take well over 1,000 shots per charge. THAT is what I'm surprised that you've not been aware of. I don't recall anyone posting messages saying "wow, my NiMH batteries now can take 400% more shots". They've all talked about the great battery life of their new *cameras*, such as several that described using lowly alkaline batteries in their Canon A610/A620, took hundreds of shots over a 4 to 6 month period and had not yet seen a "battery low" warning indication. As you seem to follow most threads here, I find it *very* hard to believe that you haven't been aware of this. One might suspect that it's part of a defensive debating technique. >> Yes, I have been aware that the capacity of AA NiMH cells has been >> increasing for some time, but I've not had any reason to check how [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > increase in battery capacity. In fact, alkaline battery capacity is > relatively unchanged. I haven't even considered alkalines. > The real increases have been with the NiMH > batteries. In the last three or four years NiMH battery capacity [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cameras were able to take well over 1,000 shots per charge. THAT is > what I'm surprised that you've not been aware of. Please don't assume that I am unaware of the changes, simply that for me by taking one spare battery with me, battery life on my own cameras has ceased to be an issue. > I don't recall anyone posting messages saying "wow, my NiMH > batteries now can take 400% more shots". They've all talked about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > aware of this. One might suspect that it's part of a defensive > debating technique. I was not aware I was defensively (or otherwise) debating anything. My preference remains for a single battery against multiple cells. Yes, if you have to change batteries less often it's less of an issue, but my preference remains. Both AA-powered and Li-ion powered cameras will benefit from lower power consumption. In a way, battery life is now like the megapixel count. For me, 5MP is enough for most of my photography, so whether the next camera has 7.2MP rather than 6.1MP doesn't really matter any more, unless it produces poorer qulaity pictures. I do like the improvements which are promised by the Olympus SP-550 UZ, as lack of wide angle is a drawback to the Panasonic FZ5 I use a lot of the time. Of course, the Olympus doesn't do as wide as my Nikon 8400 (24mm), and that remains my camera of choice for wide shots. I would like to see a significant improvement in EVFs, though, up towards SLR quality. David > Battery life is only one aspect, though. My major complaint > has always been the four separate AA cells versus the single > Li-ion battery. The single unit is far more convenient to use > both in the field and when recharging, and it is less likely > to suffer from the issues of individual cells failing. The > relatively short shelf life is the drawback. I've always preferred AA for cost and convenience. On Holiday, it has happened that my NiMH AA rechargeables had worn down and I was able to hop into a local shop, purchase 4 AA Alkalines and continue shooting. I could then recharge my NiMH's at the hotel later and not miss a beat. :) >> Battery life is only one aspect, though. My major complaint >> has always been the four separate AA cells versus the single [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Alkalines and continue shooting. I could then recharge my NiMH's >at the hotel later and not miss a beat. :) You had only one set of NiMH? Or did you run down all your spares too? >> On Holiday, it has happened that my NiMH AA rechargeables had >> worn down and I was able to hop into a local shop, purchase 4 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You had only one set of NiMH? Or did you run down all your > spares too? Had two sets, but took so many pics (I have two 512meg cards in my Oly C5050 - on xD and one CF) with flash and LCD on when touring indoor museum areas that I simply ran them down. It was quite a long day. But it was GREAT that I could just buy a 4 pack of regular AA batteries and just continue straight on. My Oly C5050 came with 1700mAh NiMH's, so that is what I have stuck with. > I was able to hop into a local shop, purchase 4 AA > Alkalines and continue shooting. I now have a set of 4 disposable Lithium AAs in the bottom of my camera bag. They have a very long shelf life (2021!) and should survive occasional emergency use very well. They're not cheap, but having good capacity batteries ready and waiting is worth every penny. However after upgrading my mobile phone last year I am very impressed by rechargeable lithium technology. I can play chess on that for hours without the screen dragging battery power down very far, and its battery is tiny. I want rechargeable Lithium AAs now! (I know, not possible). Andrew McP >> I was able to hop into a local shop, purchase 4 AA >> Alkalines and continue shooting. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Andrew McP While it is true that there are no rechargeable Lithium AAs, some cameras can also use CR V2 Lithium battery packs (which are about the size of 2 AA cells). There are now rechargeable CR V2 lithium batteries on the market. > some cameras can also use CR V2 Lithium battery packs Yes, I've thought about getting some for my K100D. But they're not recommended by Pentax because of the slightly higher voltages. Some people are using them fine though; I think it depends upon the exact voltages, which can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Still, most AA camera won't physically take those batteries... probably to discourage people from using them for the same reason Pentax do. Andrew McP >> I was able to hop into a local shop, purchase 4 AA >> Alkalines and continue shooting. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >occasional emergency use very well. They're not cheap, but having good >capacity batteries ready and waiting is worth every penny. Just a comment, but you might wnat to get a Sharpie or other permanent marker and write the expiration date on those batteries. They'll still be usable long after that date but you really should get some spares around then, and by 2021 you'll likely long since have forgotten when you got them. >However after upgrading my mobile phone last year I am very impressed by >rechargeable lithium technology. I can play chess on that for hours >without the screen dragging battery power down very far, and its battery >is tiny. I want rechargeable Lithium AAs now! (I know, not possible). > >Andrew McP > you might wnat to get a Sharpie or other permanent > marker and write the expiration date on those batteries Good idea, but fortunately the date's printed on them. Andrew McP > However after upgrading my mobile phone last year I am very impressed by > rechargeable lithium technology. I can play chess on that for hours > without the screen dragging battery power down very far, and its battery > is tiny. I want rechargeable Lithium AAs now! (I know, not possible). Funny thing, since I'm once again faced with having to scour fleabay for a replacement battery for my phone, I'm again cursing that nobody seems to make mobile phones powered by AA's or AAA's any more. I wouldn't mind in the slightest having my phone a few mm bigger or a few grams heavier, if I didn't have to deal with this damn proprietary battery replacement cycle. > I wouldn't mind in the slightest having my phone a few mm bigger or > a few grams heavier, if I didn't have to deal with this damn > proprietary battery replacement cycle. Proprietary batteries are a curse even if they often have advantages. I suppose phones are even more "volume sensitive" than all but the smallest cameras though, and I suppose squeezing a battery in must be tricky at times. I seem to buy a new phone about once every five years, so I took the precaution of buying a spare straight away this time. It will no doubt get lost before I need it. :-) Andrew McP > Proprietary batteries are a curse even if they often have advantages. I > suppose phones are even more "volume sensitive" than all but the > smallest cameras though, and I suppose squeezing a battery in must be > tricky at times. The very smallest phones and cameras have to use flat batteries, it's true. I don't have any problem using a normal sized phone, and there's plenty of space in one of those for a pair of AA's. > I seem to buy a new phone about once every five years, so I took the > precaution of buying a spare straight away this time. It will no doubt > get lost before I need it. :-) It's worse than that. Lithium ion chemistry is quite volatile and the cells stop holding charge even if they're just sitting there unused. Even if you manage to buy an OEM replacement battery for your 5-year-old discontinued phone, maybe it was made around when the phone was made and has been sitting on a shelf since then, and is thereby already partly or mostly crapped out. > It's worse than that. Lithium ion chemistry is quite volatile and the > cells stop holding charge even if they're just sitting there unused. > Even if you manage to buy an OEM replacement battery for your > 5-year-old discontinued phone, maybe it was made around when the phone > was made and has been sitting on a shelf since then, and is thereby > already partly or mostly crapped out. That's the problem I'm now having getting a usable "new" battery for my Nokia phone. Instead of the expected standby time of over 8 days, I'm getting from 10 to 15 hours, and that's with three "new" batteries that have been sent to me over the last couple of weeks. Yes, I was told that even though the phone is popular and has only been on the market for about 18 months, the company is phasing it out, so I imagine that all of the "new" batteries they have in stock were acquired about 18 months ago. Two of the batteries were sent in complete packages including a phone, charger and manual ("just throw it out or give it away"). If the thin bottom half of the phone (which contains the battery) was made 2 or 3mm thicker, it would be the same thickness as the top half of the phone and would easily be able to hold 3 NiMH AAA cells. Never happen, but that's one of the things I'd ask for if I was granted 3,000 wishes. <g> > It's worse than that. Lithium ion chemistry is quite volatile and the > cells stop holding charge even if they're just sitting there unused. Ah, that's useful to know. Thanks. Andrew McP [] >> I do wish that a campaign for "standard" Li-ion cells could be >> launched and succeed, and I feel that the cost of the custom [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > won't happen, because selling cell phones with built-in obsolescence > is far more important than keeping their sizes as small as possible. What surprises me is the no-one from the USA - one of the consumer rights campaigners - has actively taken this on. I think they would be the group most likely to achieve a result. Although, perhaps the EU might as well..... You may be right about the profit model, though. David > since Sanyo's Eneloops > (and RayOVac's Hybrids, and similar NiMH batteries sold under Radio > Shack's label and others) have *much* lower self discharge rates > than Li-Ion batteries. Interesting. Conventional wisdom used to be that NiMH batteries self- discharge quickly. You found NiMH batteries which self-discharge very little? SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/ >> since Sanyo's Eneloops >> (and RayOVac's Hybrids, and similar NiMH batteries sold under Radio [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > discharge quickly. You found NiMH batteries which self-discharge very > little? Yes. They're all described by the manufacturers as being NiMH batteries that can be charged in any standard NiMH charger. They all seem to have the same drawback in that their capacities are about 25% lower than the highest capacity NiMH cells currently available, 2,000 to 2,100 mAh. They were mentioned a number of times in this newsgroup almost a year ago, and all we knew for some time was that Sanyo made them, called them Eneloop batteries, and that they were being sold (I think) in Japan. Within the last several months they've been selling in a number of stores here. Circuit City, Ritz, Walmart, Radio Shack and probably others. Besides the Eneloops, RayOVac calls them Hybrid batteries and Radio Shack has no special name for them. What they all have in common, besides the lower capacity, is that unlike normal NiMH or NiCD batteries, they don't have to be charged before using them. They all are described as being pre-charged, and some of them indicate on the packaging that they'll retain about 85% of their initial capacity if they sit on the store shelf for two years. That's an *extremely* low self-discharge rate. In effect it means that I can use them in a camera, then put the camera in a drawer for a couple of months and when I get back to using it, the batteries won't have to be immediately recharged as would traditional NiMH or NiCD batteries. Traditional NiMH batteries continue to be sold in the greatest numbers, and for some (such as very heavy use) they're the preferred type. But for virtually all of *my* uses, even with their lower capacity, this new type of NiMH seems much more practical and desirable. Right now they're harder to find and cost about 40% to 50% more than regular NiMH batteries (Radio Shack's are 100% higher, and I don't know Walmart's prices), but they should eventually drop. >> since Sanyo's Eneloops >> (and RayOVac's Hybrids, and similar NiMH batteries sold under Radio [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >discharge quickly. You found NiMH batteries which self-discharge very >little? The Eneloops are designed for low self-discharge. However I have seen no evidence that they have "*much* lower self-discharge rates than Li-Ion". Than conventional NiMH, yes, but ASAAR is the only person I've ever seen assert that they were better than Li ion in that regard. >>> since Sanyo's Eneloops >>> (and RayOVac's Hybrids, and similar NiMH batteries sold under Radio [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've ever seen assert that they were better than Li ion in that > regard. Somewhere there should be a purchase specification or manufacturers data sheet where this is specified, and the test conditions. URL? David >>>> since Sanyo's Eneloops >>>> (and RayOVac's Hybrids, and similar NiMH batteries sold under Radio [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Somewhere there should be a purchase specification or manufacturers data >sheet where this is specified, and the test conditions. URL? Sanyo may have that somewhere on their site, but it's hard to find. They're claiming that the batteries lose 10 percent of their charge in 6 months and 15 percent in a year vs 25 and 100 for conventional NiMH. The main site is <http://www.eneloop.info>. I'm finding a repeated assertion that lithium ion loses 5 percent in the first 24 hours and 1-2 percent per month after that, with addtional losses due to the protective circuit. At the 1 percent rate it's down 11 percent in 6 months and 17 percent in a year, so perhaps, if the eneloops perform as claimed, they actually are in the same ballpark as lithium ion. Radio Shack does seem to be selling NiMH batteries for which they are making somewhat comparable claims to Sanyo--they're claiming that theirs lose 20 percent in a year vs 15 for Sanyo. The local Rat Shack has them in stock--might pick up a set and give them a try and see how they really do. Be nice to be able to grab the old Coolpix on the rare occasions that I still use it and not have the batteries be dead. [] > Radio Shack does seem to be selling NiMH batteries for which they are > making somewhat comparable claims to Sanyo--they're claiming that > theirs lose 20 percent in a year vs 15 for Sanyo. The local Rat Shack > has them in stock--might pick up a set and give them a try and see how > they really do. Be nice to be able to grab the old Coolpix on the > rare occasions that I still use it and not have the batteries be dead. That would, indeed, be nice. David > Radio Shack does seem to be selling NiMH batteries for which they are > making somewhat comparable claims to Sanyo--they're claiming that > theirs lose 20 percent in a year vs 15 for Sanyo. The local Rat Shack > has them in stock--might pick up a set and give them a try and see how > they really do. Be nice to be able to grab the old Coolpix on the > rare occasions that I still use it and not have the batteries be dead. They're probably just as good as those from Sanyo or RayOVac, but Radio Shack's price is significantly higher, $20 for 4. > The Eneloops are designed for low self-discharge. However I have seen > no evidence that they have "*much* lower self-discharge rates than > Li-Ion". Than conventional NiMH, yes, but ASAAR is the only person > I've ever seen assert that they were better than Li ion in that > regard. Better than Li-ion? I have 16 Eneloops and they are not better than Li-ion batteries for self-discharge when not in a device. Self-discharge installed will depend on the device, since some will draw small current even when "off". Phil > Self-discharge installed will depend on the > device, since some will draw small current even > when "off". Self-discharge has nothing to do with the currents drawn by devices, whether they're very small currents or not. The amount drawn by devices that are powered off varies tremendously, and if large enough can damage any rechargeable battery after several months if care isn't taken. This has virtually nothing to do with their self-discharge rates. > Better than Li-ion? I have 16 Eneloops and they are not better than > Li-ion batteries for self-discharge when not in a device. > > Self-discharge installed will depend on the device, since some will > draw small current even when "off". Li ion battery packs usually draw some current from the cells even when not in the device, because of the protection circuit. I can tell you for sure from having just a few days ago used my camcorder for the first time in about a year, that lithium ion packs self-discharge. I have three packs for my camcorder, all of them were fully charged when I last used the thing, all of them were dead when I tried them a few days ago (I recharged them). Worse, the microprocessor in the large pack (Sony NP-F960) somehow didn't realize that the pack itself was discharged, so it thought there were 1200+ minutes of runtime left and when I got through recharging it thought 2000+ minutes. > The Eneloops are designed for low self-discharge. However I have seen > no evidence that they have "*much* lower self-discharge rates than > Li-Ion". Than conventional NiMH, yes, but ASAAR is the only person > I've ever seen assert that they were better than Li ion in that > regard. I'm not the only one. Several Li-Ion manufacturers implicitly agree. One states on the accompanying instructions that to prevent damage to their Li-Ion batteries they should be charged at least once every 3 months. They do say that this periodic charge need only be for a few minutes. The other manufacturer ups the period to once every 6 months. There have also been several users here who have posted messages complaining about their dead Li-Ion batteries that could no longer be charged even though they hadn't received very much use. When asked, they admitted that their cameras had been stored in a drawer for many months without being charged. Contrast that with Eneloops (and the other brands) that leave the factory fully charged, and have "sell by" dates and information on the package indicating that the batteries can sit in a warehouse or on a store shelf for two years, and at that point they'll not only *not* have died, but will still be usable out of the package, retaining about 85% of the initial charge. Losing 15% of their charge over 24 months is clearly an extremely low self-discharge rate, well below 1% per month. Li-Ion also has a low self-discharge rate, and I've seen some claims but don't recall what they were, but I'm fairly sure that they were much greater than 1% per month, probably somewhere in the 2% to 4% range. It's also hard to pin down Li-Ion self-discharge rates since unlike NiMH technology, Li-Ion is apparently a generic label covering a number of different Li-Ion chemistries. Some probably have better discharge rates than others, better low temperature performance than others, etc. But of all of these types, I've never seen any that, like the new Eneloop type batteries, have been sold pre-charged. If they could be, without dying on a store's shelf, they would be. But every one I've seen so far requires a long initial charge before being used for the first time. > but ASAAR is the only person I've ever seen assert . . . And not for the first time either. I believe that I was the first (about 2 years ago) to assert in this ng that alkaline batteries weren't virtually worthless for use in digital cameras. The general consensus was that NiMH batteries were a "must", and even they didn't provide exceptionally long life. But after hearing all of the battery horror stories and noting that my camera's manual predicted very good battery life from alkalines and double that life from NiMH cells, I decided to duplicate the CIPA test procedure specified in the manual, using the alkaline AA batteries that were packaged with the camera. I found that they were good for slightly more than the estimated 200 shots, and what's more, that by not using the flash any more, the batteries were good for more than another 400 flash-free shots. For nearly the next year or so many people routinely continued to insist that alkaline batteries were worthless, not realizing that this was no longer true for some of the new cameras being sold. I don't see much of this any more. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.