| Author |
Message |
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:
| Quote: | Just because saving a couple of millimeters was one design goal,
one can't assume that limiting battery capacity wasn't another.
There are at least three reasons I can think of why the small
battery might help Canon's long term bottom line. How many can you
think of?
That, I think, was the point of the original, Nikon based post. And that
would be the only reason to put a smaller, non compatible battery in there.
To get me to buy yet more batteries.
|
Well, the size difference between the BP-511 and the NB-2L is fairly
substantial. It's not like the Nikon situation where the old and
new batteries are physically the same size.
| Quote: | But the flaw in that is that there's no assurance that I will buy
Canon batteries. In fact, in many cases, it pretty much assures the
opposite.
|
Yeah, there was no attempt to lock other manufacturers out of making
NB-2L's by putting special cpu's in the batteries. Sony is another
big villain in this area. For a long time they stayed with a small
number of battery types, but now they have a huge proliferation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stovall Sucks
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Why two digital camera bodies? |
|
|
John A. Stovall wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:23:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid
wrote:
JimmyG wrote:
I guarantee that the quality of the image won't come close to that of
which you can obtain using an SLR.
However, not everybody wants or needs images of such high quality.
But if a full DSLR outfit is too bulky or heavy to carry around, I
may get
/no/ image with a DSLR.
Then you aren't very serious so why worry.
|
It's nice to see that Stovall is just as arrogant an asshole in this
newsgroup as all the others he participates in.
Say, John... you claimed LONG ago you were going to run off to
France, where (hopefully) your internet access would be limited.
Any chance that could happen SOON? You still need money for the
ticket? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skip M
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xd5l4lzpb.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> writes:
Just because saving a couple of millimeters was one design goal,
one can't assume that limiting battery capacity wasn't another.
There are at least three reasons I can think of why the small
battery might help Canon's long term bottom line. How many can you
think of?
That, I think, was the point of the original, Nikon based post. And that
would be the only reason to put a smaller, non compatible battery in
there.
To get me to buy yet more batteries.
Well, the size difference between the BP-511 and the NB-2L is fairly
substantial. It's not like the Nikon situation where the old and
new batteries are physically the same size.
|
My daughter has the camera up in LA, right now, so I can't check the
relative sizes of the batteries, but my impression was that it was thinner,
but not that much shorter or more narrow.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASAAR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:36:40 -0800, Skip M wrote:
| Quote: | Just because saving a couple of millimeters was one design goal,
one can't assume that limiting battery capacity wasn't another.
There are at least three reasons I can think of why the small
battery might help Canon's long term bottom line. How many can you
think of?
That, I think, was the point of the original, Nikon based post. And that
would be the only reason to put a smaller, non compatible battery in there.
To get me to buy yet more batteries. But the flaw in that is that there's
no assurance that I will buy Canon batteries. In fact, in many cases, it
pretty much assures the opposite.
|
That's one reason, but I don't give it any more weight than you
do. The two other reasons are based on purchasing a second or a
backup body. For reasons of compatibility (with batteries) a pro
would be discouraged from getting another body, even a less costly
XT/350D since it doesn't also use the BP-511. At the other end
would be a newbie that gets an XT/350D and loves it. Until getting
one of the power hungry IS lenses and suddenly sees reason to
upgrade to a body that uses the larger BP-511 battery. Neither
reason will affect a large percentage of Canon owners, but small
percentages of large populations amount to enough to waken business
bean counters everywhere, and Canon has its share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: incompatible batteries. Scammed again. |
|
|
ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
| Quote: | That's one reason, but I don't give it any more weight than you
do. The two other reasons are based on purchasing a second or a
backup body. For reasons of compatibility (with batteries) a pro
would be discouraged from getting another body, even a less costly
XT/350D since it doesn't also use the BP-511.
|
Yeah, I'd be happier if the XT/350D used the BP-511 but the bottom
line is that compatible substitutes for both the BP-511 and the NB-2L
are around $8 each on ebay, so buying multiple batteries of those
types isn't much expense, compared with $39.95 for Nikon's EL-EN3E
with no substitutes available at least as of yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John A. Stovall
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Why two digital camera bodies? |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:23:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:
| Quote: | JimmyG wrote:
I guarantee that the quality of the image won't come close to that of
which you can obtain using an SLR.
However, not everybody wants or needs images of such high quality.
But if a full DSLR outfit is too bulky or heavy to carry around, I may get
/no/ image with a DSLR.
|
Then you aren't very serious so why worry.
*********************************************************
"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in